Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Cefn Coed Hospital (Forensic Unit)

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the establishment of a medium secure forensic unit at Cefn Coed hospital, Swansea; and whether he expects it to open on target in 1990.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The Department's initial suggestion that the medium secure psychiatric unit for south-west Wales might be located at Cefn Coed hospital is being reviewed in consultation with the health authorities most concerned. When all the responses have been received and considered a final decision will be made.

Mr. Wardell: The Minister will know that the Welsh Office had agreed that the three units would be located at Cefn Coed hospital, Swansea, Bridgend and Cardiff. Why will the 750,000 people residing in south Wales presumably now be denied the response that the unit can go ahead in 1990? Is it not time that such a Cinderella service was not accepted by the Government, and that the unit was set up urgently at Cefn Coed?

Mr. Grist: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that the programme was long overdue and that the Government should take credit for putting it in action at all. The fact that there is disagreement over the positioning at Cefn Coed was mentioned at the time of the original announcement. It is on medical and social grounds that the discussions have been taking place. We have had our report from West Glamorgan health authority and we expect the reports from the other two health authorities very shortly.

Factory Units

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many factory units have been built by the Welsh Development Agency since its inception.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Since its inception the agency has built 1,466 factory units. That figure does not include the 186 factories purchased from Cwbran development corporation.

Mr. Knox: How many factory units have been built each year, on average, since the present Government came into power, and how does that compare with the figure under the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Walker: As a rough approximation, under the present Government the annual rate has been more than double that under the Labour Government.

Mr. Foot: I welcome the increase in the number of factories that have been coming into Gwent, for example. over recent months, and I see that the Secretary of State has been eager to give some publicity to that event. Will he take account of the fact that the increase in applications is partly because many of the industrialists think that the terms that they are being offered now are better than those that they will get later? Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that if after an interval of, say, three months—I am sure that that will be long enough—he finds that the figure is not being sustained, he will revert to the present system?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in terms of factory applications and factory building by the WDA, the programme for the next three years, including in his constituency, shows a substantial increase.

Mr. Raffan: While there has been a warm welcome in north Wales for the massive increase in the WDA property programme, made possible by the Government, will my right hon. Friend take note of the need for a better balance in the number of factories between south-east Clwyd and north-east and coastal Clwyd? South-east Clwyd seems to be benefiting far more than the north-east and coastal parts of the county.

Mr. Walker: I can only say that I am anxious that factories should be built and workshops provided wherever the need is. The WDA is endeavouring to do that throughout the Principality.

British Coal

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met the deputy chairman of British Coal on 21 January. We discussed a range of issues relating to the south Wales coal industry. I also had talks with the chairman on 19 March.

Mr. Griffiths: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he raise with him the callous disregard that British Coal is showing for five householders on the edge of the Margam deep mine site? Because British Coal continually denies that it is going ahead with that proposal, those householders' homes have been blighted and one householder has had to refuse a 90 per cent. grant because British Coal has refused to pay for the house once it has been improved, if it finally decides to go ahead with the mine.

Mr. Walker: I shall be happy to convey to the chairman the detailed problems that the hon. Gentleman relates. I can only say that I hope there will be a quick decision on whether Margam is to go ahead.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As my right hon. Friend is aware, whether the mine at Margam goes ahead depends very much on the attitude of the National Union of Mineworkers in south Wales. Has he heard anything from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about whether the Labour party is encouraging the NUM to agree to the proposal?

Mr. Walker: Since the challenge by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the recent debate there has not been a word from the Labour party about its attitude towards Margam. I hope that there will be.

Mr. Livsey: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he ensure that there is a proper balance between opencast mining and deep mining in south Wales? Will he also ensure that British Coal does not have plans to work deep-mine sites by opencast workings, thereby blighting the communities in the areas concerned?

Mr. Walker: All applications for opencast mining must be accompanied by proper planning procedures, and I am sure that that practice will be followed.

Mr. Barry Jones: When does the Secretary of State believe that the result of the public inquiry into opencast mining at Cheapside in my constituency will be made known? Is he aware of the widespread opposition to the proposal, and does he know that people in east Clwyd fear that they are to be subject to the increasing intentions and activities of the Opencast Executive? Will he examine these matters?

Mr. Walker: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman when I can find any sign of when the decision will be made.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Margam project is being dangled before the people of Wales as if it were a puppet on a string? Is this not in line with the right hon. Gentleman's record as Secretary of State for Energy from 11 June 1983 to 12 June 1987, when he closed no fewer than 17 pits with a loss of 12,287 jobs—55 per cent. of the work force? In the past week south Wales has been reduced to a peripheral area. Does it mean that in taking up the position of Secretary of State for Wales the right hon. Gentleman has been appointed to finish the job of closing a great traditional Welsh industry?

Mr. Walker: As Secretary of State for Energy, I did not close anywhere near as many mines in South Wales as the number closed by the previous Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman measures performance by the closure of mines, the Labour Government had a terrific triumph. Once more there has been an opportunity for the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench to give their enthusiastic support for Margam. May we please have a word from them? Are they in favour of Margam, or are they not?

Hospital Waiting Lists

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest hospital in-patient waiting list figures for (a) urgent and (b) non-urgent patients for (i) Clwyd and (ii) Wales.

Mr. Grist: The number of people waiting for urgent in-patient treatment in Clwyd at 30 September 1987 was 383 and in Wales 3,596. The numbers waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment were 4,491 and 36,262 respectively.

Dr. Marek: The Minister will no doubt remember his bungled pledge that by the spring no one in Wales should have to wait for more than one month for an urgent operation and not more than one year for a non-urgent operation? Will he renew the promise?

Mr. Grist: Certainly that remains our target. It is being achieved. Opposition Members might like to learn that of 225 major in-patient lists in Wales, 85 per cent. are meeting the target waiting time of one month for urgent in-patient treatment and 73 per cent. are meeting the target waiting time of one year for non-urgent treatment.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not almost inevitable that with further advances in medical science new operations will become possible; and that the categories of urgent and non-urgent will become completely different?

Mr. Grist: I cannot gainsay what my hon. Friend has said. Practice changes as improvements are made, and


patients do not necessarily have to stay in hospital for the periods that applied in the past, or at all, and unfortunately the cost of the various drugs and items of equipment continues to increase.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give his response to the criticisms that have been made by doctors who took part in the perinatal mortality initiative that was set up by the Secretary of State's predecessor in 1985? Nothing has been done to execute the recommendations that followed the initiative—22 months after they were submitted to the Welsh Office. It was reported in the Western Mail last week that Dr. Sandy Cavanagh, who was a member of the initiative, said that he found the delay of 22 months both amazing and actionable. What is the Minister's response to these comments?

Mr. Grist: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has much to do with Clwyd or waiting lists. I can tell him that perinatal mortality figures in Wales have been reduced from above those for England to below those for England during this Government's term of office.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had messages of appreciation from constituents who have benefited from the Welsh Office's extra spending to reduce waiting lists, which resulted in South Glamorgan buying in heart operations from outside hospitals? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done to achieve the Welsh Office's target of an increased number of heart operations?

Mr. Grist: Yes. Of course, my hon. Friend will be aware that we are waiting for a final report from the Royal College of Physicians on cardiac provision in south Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: Has the Minister seen the recent report that, with 41 million days sickness recorded, Wales has the highest sickness rates in the whole of Britain—three times as high as the rate in England? Does he consider that at least one result—I do not say that it will be the sole or major result—will be longer waiting lists? Wales has a lower proportion of hospital beds than even Northern Ireland and Scotland. As a DHSS spokesman has said that he has no theory to explain the higher Welsh figures, and in view of the importance of the figures, will the Welsh Office take an initiative and establish an urgent top-level inquiry to determine what special factors are at work in Wales?

Mr. Grist: The major step that the Welsh Office would claim to have taken in the recent past is the establishment of the Welsh Health Promotion Authority. Unfortunately, our lifestyle in Wales contributes to the sorts of death rates and some of the diseases from which we suffer rather too much.

Rating Reform

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the financing of community councils in Wales after the introduction of the community charge.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has received several representations from and on behalf of community councils.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that councils, which are the elected bodies closest to the electorate, have a valuable role to fulfil, provided that they stick to the job for which they were elected? Does he agree that, in view of the changeover to the community charge, there is anxiety about the future of their financing arrangements?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are the local councils. They will be absolutely free to continue the role that they are currently undertaking. which is the provision of services for people in their localities. We expect that they will continue to do so, and that they will have no trouble in carrying out that task.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that 60 per cent. of the finance of community councils in my constituency comes from non-domestic rates? Does he agree also that, to help community councils in Wales, which he applauds —we all agree with him—it is necessary for them to have not only grant but part of the non-domestic rate income?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is following up a mistake that I thought had been corrected in Committee and in a letter to him on the difference between Wales and England in that respect. It is worth pointing out that community council spending per head of adult population in Wales is only £3·50. Of course, in many areas there is no community spending at all. At present levels, most community council charges would be under £10.

Welsh Language

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to announce a decision on his plans for new Welsh language legislation; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I are now considering measures to promote and protect the Welsh language, details of which will be announced shortly.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister tell the House why, following their consultation, which concluded on 31 March 1987, on the draft Bill that was proposed by Lord Prys-Davies in another place, and by myself here, the Government have still not published the detailed representations that they received? They have not even shown the balance of opinion in favour or against the new legislation. As they have held the consultations, is it not high time that the results of those consultations were made public?

Mr. Roberts: We have made known the results of that consultation. They were inconclusive, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is why my right hon. Friend set up a group under my chairmanship. It has met three times and has given constructive thought to the problem. My right hon. Friend has also met representatives of various Welsh language bodies. We shall publish the representations that were made during the consultation. We shall certainly make them available after we have finished working with them.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Those of us who support the view that the Welsh language and culture should be encouraged in every way are worried about the


law-breaking activities of some members of the Welsh Language Society. Does my hon. Friend agree that they do nothing to help the advancement of Welsh in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: Law-breaking activities by members of the Welsh Language Society, or any other body, are counter-productive., Law-breaking activities only create antipathy and diminish the goodwill that exists in Wales towards the language.

Mr. Heffer: As somebody who studied the Welsh language during the evening at the Liverpool university extra-mural classes and as a member of the Welsh Labour History Society, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what efforts are being made to encourage the study of the Welsh language in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in England?

Mr. Roberts: We certainly encourage people from England to visit Wales. We extend a warm croeso to them when they visit Wales. It is a fact that among the most ardent Welsh learners these days are people from England who have come to settle in Wales.

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether among the proposals that he is considering there is a suggestion that parents should have a statutory right to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh, should they so choose?

Mr. Roberts: I am not prepared to comment on the details of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are considering. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the new place given to the Welsh language in the national curriculum and of the steps that we are taking by the establishment of a Welsh language subject group. We announced the name of the chairman last week and we shall be announcing the membership shortly. There will also be a curriculum council for Wales. Welsh will be a foundation subject, which means that it will be available to all children in all parts of Wales, except where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State grants an exception.

Mr. Flynn: The survival of the Welsh language is a continuing miracle. It is a great treasure that we all hold in trust. It is also the most dangerously divisive and explosive issue in Wales. The window of opportunity for legislation is now wide open. This year, for the first time this century, the National Eisteddfod is coming to the most Anglicised part of Wales—Newport. This would have been inconceivable 21 years ago, which was the last time that the House legislated on the language. We must now seize the opportunity which is provided by the evidence of goodwill towards the language from all parties and areas of Wales. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not delay until they are pressured into action, as they were on the fourth channel? They should build now on the burgeoning, but perhaps fragile, goodwill towards the language by acting swiftly to secure the health and survival of yr hen iqith.

Mr. Roberts: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench, and I welcome also his tour de force in favour of the Welsh language. He referred to legislation and, of course, it is easy to cry for a Welsh language Act. It is not so easy to say what might or should go into it. As the hon. Gentleman appears to be committing the Labour party to legislating—I hasten to

add that there is no commitment on the Government side —perhaps he will let us know what the content of any Bill might be.

Personal Debt

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to tackle the problem of personal debt in Wales and to ensure that adequate services of money management, advice and debt counselling are available to families and individuals in Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently made clear to the hon. Gentleman, a great deal of advice and help on debt problems are already provided free of charge by citizens advice bureaux and other organisations. Funding from my Department is provided under the urban programme to a number of organisations of this kind.

Mr. Michael: Will the Secretary of State accept that the question that he has not answered is what steps he intends to take to tackle the problem, in view of the greater intensity that will hit us as a result of the Government's legislation on social security? Will he accept that the replies to similar questions that have been given by the Secretary of State for Social Services and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has a responsibility for trade and industry, have been woefully light and inadequate? The only remaining possibility of help for people in Wales on this desperately serious problem is for the Secretary of State to take some positive action. Will he answer more affirmatively about what he will do on this matter?

Mr. Walker: As I mentioned, one of the main sources of advice are the citizens advice bureaux. I am delighted that Government funding of those organisations has more than quadrupled during the period that we have been in power.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the Secretary of State support the advice of his other Ministers that elderly people in communities such as mine should go further into debt either to pay for their hip operations or to cover the losses in benefit and rate rebate that the Government are now imposing?

Mr. Walker: I do not believe that any such advice was given.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Secretary of State proud to be a loyal, long-serving, unprotesting member of a Cabinet which, to save £13 million in Wales, has told the poorest people in our second poorest region that they must go without necessities, take loans from the Department of Health and Social Security, beg from charities or throw themselves on the mercy of loans sharks? Will he give his view on a piece of advice that was given? Does he echo the Prime Minister's advice to a 73-year-old Welsh woman that she should take out a bank loan?

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to support a Government who, unlike the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a junior Minister, are spending 42 per cent. more in real terms on the National Health Service and doing far more for education and for pensioners. I find the right hon. Gentleman's hypocrisy staggering.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the Secretary of State to withdraw the word "hypocrisy" which he levelled against the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker: I withdraw the word "hypocrisy" and substitute "surprising".

Gwynedd Health Authority

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Gwynedd health authority; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Gwynedd health authority on 8 March this year. The authority's financial position and the formula used in determining resource allocations in Wales were discussed.

Dr. Thomas: The Minister has suggested that the meeting did take place. Is he aware that today that health authority is due to come to a crucial decision about the future of hospital services in five hospitals in the county of Gwynedd, one of which directly affects the Nant Conwy area, my own constituency and that of his hon. Friend the Minister of State? Will the Minister tell the House whether, when the decision is taken by the health authority, the Welsh Office will ensure that the views of the local population, strongly expressed during the consultation process against any reduction in hospital services, will be considered fully by the Government? I appreciate that the Minister cannot state that he will oppose these closure proposals, but if he can say that those views will be taken into account, that will be appreciated by the communities affected.

Mr. Grist: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that if there is disagreement on any decision made by the health authority on the programme that it is facing it will, of course, come to the Welsh Office for one month, during which time we shall be open to any representations.

Rogerstone Power Station

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the likely effect on jobs and the environment of the reopening of Rogerstone power station.

Mr. Peter Walker: I understand that negotiations between the Central Electricity Generating Board and a private power company are at an advanced stage. Employment at the power station will be a matter for the prospective purchaser, who will, of course, also have to adhere strictly to the environmental regulations and controls that apply to power stations.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware that hundreds of fine local homes are now in the front line for pollution from gases, carcinogens, wind-blown dust and 24-hour noise? Does he not agree that reopening Rogerstone could destroy more jobs than it creates and blight the Newport jobs build-up? New high-tech jobs are coming to Newport in great numbers because it is a good place to work and live. High-tech firms do not sit comfortably as neighbours with mucky, old, heavy industry. Will the Secretary of State promise to bring his

influence to bear to stop the reopening of Rogerstone, which could be a planning atrocity and an act of industrial vandalism, the like of which we have not seen for decades?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will not be taken as an attack on coal-fired power stations, because if they are the National Union of Mineworkers will be interested in his observations. Of course, any power station would have to adhere strictly to the environmental regulations and controls that apply to all power stations. Most of the power stations in this country are coal-fired and I am surprised at the sort of attack that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Would my right hon. Friend use the word he used earlier to describe as surprising one of his Front-Bench colleagues if he were to come forward with a policy of attacking job opportunities in his constituency? Is that appropriate for a Front Bench spokesman? Should we not approach all job opportunity proposals positively, in the interests of further reviving the economy of Wales?

Mr. Walker: All job opportunities must be considered in terms of their total impact. Obviously, for a power station, environmental regulations and controls are of considerable importance, and they will be imposed.

Home Improvement Loans

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Welsh housing of the proposed removal of tax relief on house improvement loans.

Mr. Grist: A married man on average earnings will be paying nearly £5 less per week in income tax as a result of the changes announced in the Budget. This will more than offset the tax relief attracted by the average home improvement loan in Wales. I do not believe that the removal of this support will have a significant impact on repair and renovation.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister not ashamed that there are now a record 20,000 homeless families in Wales, that the housing conditions in the Cynon Valley are among the worst in the United Kingdom and that the removal of tax relief is regarded by all building societies as a major disincentive to people wishing to improve their homes? What evidence has he that there is widespread abuse, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged in his Budget speech, and that home improvement loans are being used in Wales to buy cars and second holidays?

Mr. Grist: I was not aware that the hon. Lady thought that there was any great difference between Wales and England in these matters, but if she has any evidence of that, obviously we shall be interested to see it. She mentioned a whole raft of matters in her statement. It is interesting to note that the Cynon Valley home improvement agency is being established rather late in the day by her council with a considerable degree of help from the Welsh Office, which has been molly-coddling and helping her council for some time, as she knows.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not astonishing of the Minister to assert in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that there is no difference in this matter between Wales and England? He quoted the average earnings for the United Kingdom. Our earnings


are substantially lower. He, more than anyone else, should be aware of the quality of Welsh housing compared with English housing and, therefore, of our greater need. Was that not an astonishingly complacent and ignorant reply?

Mr. Grist: The whole reason why the Government have quadrupled the amount of home improvement in Wales is that we recognised those faults, which, apparently, were overlooked by the Labour party.

Hospital Beds

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital beds there were in (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd in May 1979; and what is the current number.

Mr. Grist: The average daily number of beds available in 1979 was 3,052 in Clwyd and 23,456 in Wales. The number available in 1986 was 2,769 and 21,686 respectively. The numbers of patients treated, however, was 47,741 in Clwyd and 349,695 in Wales in 1979, compared with 57,519 in Clwyd and 433,870 in Wales in 1986.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister ensure ugent and decisive action regarding the need of patients in Clwyd to journey to England for radiotherapy and other cancer treatments? Does he understand the distress and worry for families as well as patients who must undertake these journeys? May I tell him of an elderly constituent who finds the journey costly and distressing, and who would like to be treated in his native Deeside? Will the Minister take urgent action?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Welsh Office is indeed looking into the whole provision of cancer treatment in north Wales, for the reasons that he mentioned. We are aware of them.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister explain how, in making a speech in Builth Wells in my constituency last Friday, he said that the National Health Service did not require any more public funding, when in the same week Powys health authority announced the closure of 26 beds in St. David's hospital? Has that something to do with the formula associated with the number of private beds?

Mr. Grist: I think that it is worth pointing out that Powys health authority in-patient throughputs, both urgent and non-urgent, meet Welsh Office targets. That is a matter for congratulations. What I said was that it was not necessary to throw more money around to achieve better efficiency. We must get more efficiency out of the money that we already spend.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that hospitals throughout Wales will be greatly helped by the most generous increase in nurses' pay that was announced last week? That increase contrasts with a cut in the real take-home pay of nurses under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Grist: Indeed. The pay award means that expenditure in real terms on the Health Service in Wales under this Government has increased by more than 42 per cent. Nurses were not the only people to suffer under the previous Labour Government. Administrators, clerical grades, doctors and dentists also suffered cuts in real pay.

Health Authorities

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

Mr. Peter Walker: I will be meeting the Welsh health authorities' chairmen's committee on 14 June. An agenda for our meeting has not yet been fixed.

Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Government have stated, time and time again, that they are committed to the principle of community care, but they have never made the resources available to match that commitment. When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities, will he discuss with them the implications of the Griffiths report in England, which calls for greater partnership between social services dept and health authorities?

Mr. Walker: We have been discussing community service health board chairmen, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: When the Secretary of State meets the chairmen of the health athorities, will he raise with them the problems of the delays in cervical smear testing and the reporting of the results? I have received a letter from a nurse in Whitland in my constituency. She expresses the concern and anxiety of many people at the three-month delay at the local hospital between carrying out the tests and reporting the results. The nurse points out that that delay can be the difference between life and death.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman would care to send me the correspondence that he has had from the nurse, I shall certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Raffan: Although I warmly welcome the nurses' pay rise and the Government's decision to fund it in full, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of medical laboratory scientific officers, whose pay increased by 5·6 per cent. less than the rate of inflation between 1 April 1979 and 1 April 1986? Will the Government reconsider the possibility of including them in the pay review body?

Mr. Walker: Nurses were specifically included in the pay review body primarily because of their agreement that they would not be involved in strike action. I am pleased to say that as a result of that, and the actions of the review body, a staff nurse today is receiving 110 per cent. more in salary than when we came into office.

Forestry

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what acreage of land he proposes to approve for afforestation during the current year.

Mr. Peter Walker: There is no fixed programme of new planting in Wales. The level of planting will depend on a number of factors.

Mr. Davies: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that Wales is making more than its fair contribution to British forestry policy? Will he confirm that there are some 10,000 hectares of land that have been cleared for afforestation in Wales, but have not yet been planted? In


the light of those figures, how can he possibly justify refusing to extend to the areas of high environmental value in the uplands of Wales the same measure of protection as his counterpart in England has given to the English uplands?

Mr. Walker: It is not a question of the same measure of protection. In reality there is a considerable difference. There is little conifer planting in England, and it is a different scene from Wales. A number of hon. Members are aware of the requirements of the substantial paper industry in Wales and of the importance of ensuring that a future supply of conifers in Wales. Every decision will he taken after fully considering the environmental interest.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise my right hon. Friend's great interest in arboricultural matters. Will he confirm that there is a need in the Principality, as there is in England, for sensible lowland broadleaved woodland planting schemes as well as the coniferous upland afforestation?

Mr. Walker: I welcome the new grants that have been provided, as I believe that they will provide a number of opportunities in the lowland areas of Wales for better planting of broadleaved trees.

Dr. Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an inherent conflict in his role as national parks and agriculture Minister and that of forestry Minister? Therefore, does he accept that it is high time that afforestation in the national parks were subject to planning consent in the normal way?

Mr. Walker: I am well aware of the environmental and forestry considerations in the balance that I must strike. I know of no great criticisms. We wish to retain the beauty of the national parks and to have a successful forestry and paper industry in Wales. I think that both can be achieved.

Rail Services

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions he has met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the future of rail services in the Principality.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met Sir Robert Reid on 5 February 1988.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State agree that major issues such as the Channel tunnel and electrification of the south Wales line are not just operational matters for British Rail but could have major implications for Wales? Will he intervene with British Rail, first, to ensure that the opportunities presented by the Channel tunnel are fully grasped and, secondly, to press for the electrification of the south Wales line?

Mr. Walker: Sir Robert Reid is enthusiastic about the prospects of British Rail in Wales, and I am delighted to say that he is entering into specific consultations on how we will benefit from the Channel tunnel, how it will be handled, the improvement of passenger services and the improvement of surburban services from the valleys. Many actions are being taken, and British Rail is taking a positive view.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Thomas Cranmer (Anniversary)

Mr. Hunter: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Commissioners are taking to support celebrations of the 500th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Cranmer.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Commissioners have at present no plans regarding such celebrations.

Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind that Thomas Cranmer was the architect of the Prayer Book, and that the Prayer Book is the birthright of the reformed Church of England and the bedrock of its doctrine, will my right hon. Friend encourage those responsible to ensure that the anniversary is observed? Does he agree that the refusal of the Post Office to issue a commemorative stamp is hardly an auspicious start?

Mr. Alison: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that plans are afoot, through Lambeth palace, to mark this important anniversary.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Commissioner make representations to the Post Office to get it to reverse its decision? Given some of the events that the Post Office commemorates with stamp issues, should not this rank high on the list?

Mr. Alison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do my best to make effective representations through the proper channels.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Although I believe that Cranmer came down on the wrong side of the fence—or perhaps I should say stake—would it not be as well, in this anniversary year if his splendid prayers and collects were studied by the Anglo-Americans, who shamefully mistranslated the Latin rites into banal English, and by those to whom will fall the task of revising them?

Mr. Alison: I shall weigh carefully what my hon. Friend has said on a sensitive area of possible division. He will recall that Cranmer coined the phrase "the Church militant"—before the word "militant" took on a more political connotation. I am confident that the Church militant will prove to be the Church triumphant, unlike the Militant Tendency.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am all for commemorating Archbishop Cranmer's birth, but what about Bishops Hooper, Ridley and Latimer——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Thomas Cranmer.

Mr. Banks: My point is that they all suffered similar fates. Indeed, if they had burnt a few more Ridleys, we might not have had the poll tax Bill. The Bishop of Durham should be grateful for the fact that the Prime Minister does not have the powers that Queen Mary had in 1555. If she had, the pungent smell of roast cleric might be wafting up our nostrils now.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to show that the Church Commissioners are not 100 per cent. supporters and admirers of Thomas Cranmer. The hon.
Gentleman will recall that during his primacy he presided over the redistribution of the Church's assets after the dissolution of the monasteries. The Church Commissioners at least would have been much better off today had it not been for that royal diffusion.

"Faith in the City"

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much will be spent by the Church Commissioners on the Synod project related to "Faith in the City"; what proportion of the total expenditure this represents; to what areas of lay and spiritual activity the money will be allocated; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The Measure enabling the Church Commissioners to make grants to the Church urban fund was approved by this House on 12 April and will be considered in another place tomorrow. If the Measure receives Royal Assent, the Commissioners will make a grant of £1 million from their surplus income in 1987 and will consider repeating that in 1988 and subsequent years —£1 million represents 0·6 per cent. of their expenditure in 1987. The money will be used by the trustees of the fund to support the Church's work in urban priority areas.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need for a massive Church effort in rural areas, where vicars sometimes have to look after as many as 10 or even 15 parishes on their own? They feel that their efforts and their parishes are funding the "Faith in the City" effort. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that a special effort is made to get more clergy into the countryside as well as into the towns, and that rural clergymen are given their share of concern?

Mr. Alison: I assure my hon. Friend that the Church Commissioners do. indeed, contribute to other deprived areas, including rural deprived areas, through other sources and by other means than contributions to the Church urban fund. That substantial contribution to other areas, including rural areas, will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Sitting Times (Costs)

Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the cost in overtime, other payments and overheads of sittings of the House beyond 10 o'clock for each year from 1958 for which records exist.

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The responsibility for overtime worked by House of Commons staff lies with Heads of Departments. Authorised submissions to the Fees Office for payment of overtime, while specifying the duration of the extra work, do not indicate the time covered. The information is, therefore, not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Member answering for the House of Commons Commission go away and try to get some accurate information? He will be aware, as will you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1945 only two sittings of the House went beyond 12 o'clock at night, whereas the average is

now two a week. That not only entails massive costs but, reflects upon the Government's ability to get their business through—not just this Government, but others. Will the hon. Gentleman make recommendations on behalf of the House of Commons Commission to the Procedure Committee, when it is established, to ensure that proper overtime payments are made, that the costs to the House are reduced and that hon. Members can get on with their job at a seemly hour?

Mr. Beith: Having served on Procedure Committees that have made recommendations on this matter, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but the job of the Commission is to ensure that the decisions that the House itself makes to sit late are implemented with satisfactory staff support, for which proper overtime payments are made.

Mr. Skinner: Can the hon. Gentleman get the statistics for the costs of keeping open the many bars in and around the Houses of Parliament, particularly the Press Bar? Does that involve a cost on the House? Is the taxpayer having to subsidise it to keep the journalists here after hours? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could address himself in particular to the Smoking Room, where most of the Tory Members do their boozing, and check on journalists, many of whom used to inhabit such places but for some reason do not any more, who write articles about it.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting matters, but his questions about the profitability of the various bars will have to be addressed to the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether I am right in saying that considerable extra cost is incurred after 11 pm in providing transport for all the staff, who then go home by taxi, no matter how far away they live? If that is, indeed, the case, may we have the figures showing the additional transport costs for sittings that continue after 11 pm?

Mr. Beith: I wondered whether my hon. Friend was going to offer lifts in his taxi. Provision is, indeed, made for late-night transport for staff who have to work beyond the times at which public transport is available. Whether or not the House sits late, some of that transport has to be used by staff whose work for the Official Report and on other duties continues after the House has risen. Additional costs are, of course, incurred when the House sits late.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Tree-planting Schemes

Mr. Chapman: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to replace trees recently lost on their lands and to contribute to broad-leaved woodland planting schemes.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): In the areas affected by the October hurricane the Church Commissioners propose to undertake replanting mainly in the 1988–89 season. It is the Commissioners' policy to maintain and enhance the plantations on their agricultural


estates. They are considering the scope for establishing new broadleaved plantations in accordance with current EC and Government grant schemes and initiatives.

Mr. Chapman: As most of the damage to Church property during the October hurricane was caused to trees on land owned by the Church Commissioners, my right hon. Friend's answer will be widely welcomed. May I commend to him that the Church plays an even more active part this year in National Tree Week, which is to be organised by the Tree Council in November, by going ahead with its replanting schemes on a massive scale during that month?

Mr. Alison: I note with appreciation my hon. Friend's comments. He may like to know that the Church Commissioners planted over 10,000 trees in 1987. Because of the damage caused by the hurricane, we expect to plant a great many more.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Procedure Committee

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recommendations of the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament have not been brought before the House for decision.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Four reports of the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament have not so far been debated or implemented. They are on the allocation of time to Government Bills in Standing Committee; short speeches, a parliamentary calendar, and on the use of time on the Floor of the House. A Government motion relating to the report on short speeches is at present on the Order Paper, and I hope that this can be decided upon by the House in the near future.

Mr. Allen: Is the Lord President aware that in addition to the report on the ten-minute speech rule there are a number of other items, such as the parliamentary calendar, drawn from outstanding reports and including such matters as the timetabling of Bills, which many hon. Members think it is important to debate? When will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on those and other outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee, and what is his projected date for the establishment of the new Procedure Committee so that new Members in particular may make clear how they regard the rules of this club?

Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, as I said on Thursday, I hope to be able later this week to table a motion setting up the new Procedure Committee. The hon. Gentleman asked about the outstanding reports of the Procedure Committee. I am having discussions with hon. Members in all parts of the House about the best way forward. The Procedure Committee concluded, and I agree, that it would not be practicable or right to recommend radical changes that would be opposed by a large body of opinion in the House. Therefore, I am trying to get as much support as possible for change. I hope to arrange a debate in the near future.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Procedure Committee whether it would have agreed with

the Leader of the Opposition when he excused the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) who was thrown out of this House for interrupting Prayers, and when he said that he understood the hooligan antics of his hon. Friend when they disrupted the proceedings during the Budget which caused the sitting to be suspended? It seems that the Leader of the Opposition has changed his mind recently about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) although his Whips, of course, two of whom abstained, did not do so. In the past, of course, the Leader of the Opposition has supported many of these antics.

Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the Procedure Committee will be set up with general terms of reference. It will be open to the Committee to choose the subjects that it wishes to discuss, and it will be open to any hon. Member, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition or my hon. Friend, to give evidence to the Committee if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Heffer: In relation to the timetabling of Bills, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many hon. Members, when they first come to the House, are full of enthusiasm for getting home at midnight, if not earlier? When they have been here some time they understand that. on occasions, time is the only thing that the Opposition have if they are to hold up and properly debate Government Bills. That goes for all Governments. Before rushing into the timetabling of Bills, will the right hon. Gentleman consider that some of us believe that the Opposition have to oppose Bills when they think that those Bills are wrong? If that means that sometimes hon. Members, and especially younger hon. Members, have to go through the night, that is what ought to be done, rather than tying it up with the Government and letting them get away with things.

Mr. Wakeham: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that he is not accusing my or any other Conservative Member of trying to rush into changing the procedures of the House. I agree that proper discussion is necessary before we make radical changes to the procedures of the House.

Visitors (Facilities)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received about facilities available to visitors to the House.

Mr. Wakeham: In addition to two parliamentary questions, one from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and one from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I have recently received representations from two hon. Members concerning unrelated aspects of the provision of facilities for visitors to the House.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider improving arrangements for visitors queuing to get into the Strangers Gallery? If we are to have television cameras in the House, will he consider making available closed-circuit television in Westminster Hall for those who are unable to get into the Gallery?

Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, we could consider that suggestion. However, first of all we must proceed with


setting up the experiment for televising the House, and the Select Committee is working on that at the moment. I think that my hon. Friend's suggestion could be examined, but it probably will have to wait until we have gone through the other processes.

Mr. Cryer: Could not facilities for visitors be improved? People come from all over the country, they are often tired and hungry, yet the only facilities available are the Strangers' Cafeteria and the Members' Cafeteria, where hon. Members are limited to three people per Member——

Mr. Skinner: It is two now.

Mr. Cryer: I understand that it is now two visitors per Member. Can we make some useful innovations, such as turning the Royal Gallery into a lounge for visitors—the people who pay for this place—and provide cafeteria facilities there, instead of allowing their Lordships a handful of lounges in which to lounge around, and ensure that the public, instead of the geriatric wing down the corridor, get the facilities?

Mr. Wakeham: I have a feeling that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to improve the facilities for visitors in the House he has not suggested the most easy and practical way to make progress. In a recent written answer I told him that the existing facilities of the Palace of Westminster are already full to capacity and that no other suitable accommodation is readily available. The situation is unlikely to change until after extra catering accommodation becomes available in the new building. At that time the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee may wish to give the matter further consideration.

Terrace (Catering Facilities)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the catering facilities on the Terrace of the House; at what cost to public funds; what the subsequent availability and capacity of this facility will be; what functions are expected to be held there; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: The Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission have approved in principle the provision in 1989 of a replacement tented pavilion of approximately the same dimensions as the existing facility. The relevant Services Sub-Committees will continue to monitor plans for this redevelopment and no final decision will be taken until a detailed and fully-costed feasibility study is available for consideration.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great pressure from the House and from the public for the facilities on the Terrace? Will he seek to make available all-year-round catering facilities to hon. Members, to which members of the public can come if invited?

Mr. Wakeham: At this stage we are awaiting detailed proposals from the Catering Sub-Committee. It is aware of the pressure on the services that it provides, and no doubt will put forward relevant and interesting proposals for the Services Committee to consider.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House must be aware that we treat our visitors abysmally in terms of the

facilities that are available, because they are not able to take advantage of the few facilities that we have. Will the right hon. Gentleman look very carefully at a number of proposals that have been made to him, particularly the suggestion that Westminster Hall should be used during the summer? Westminster Hall is a huge, empty space and it is scandalous that it should be so under-used. Perhaps during the summer visitors could go there to get some refreshment.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that to some people that might be an improvement in the situation, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that although the use of Westminster Hall might improve matters, it would also present practical problems. I am sure that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee could consider that suggestion.

Mrs. Clwyd: Would not one way of improving the catering facilities and the general well-being of hon. Members be to increase the variety of bottled water available to hon. Members, particularly since before Easter we were told on the Floor of the House that, in addition to English, Scottish and French waters, we would also have Welsh water? Where is the Welsh water?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Lady. I like to drink Welsh water whenever I can. I do not know the answer to the question, but if she and I together make representations in the right quarter, we might he successful.

Business Questions (Early-Day Motions)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he takes when early-day motions are brought to his attention at business questions.

Mr. Wakeham: These are referred to the Minister with responsibility for the issue raised and any action that seems appropriate is taken.

Mr. Dalyell: To which Minister did the Lord President refer early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273 and 286? As he was intimately involved, according to Mr. Peter Jenkins in his book, in all the crucial meetings concerned with how to deal with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on Westland, does he refer to himself—that would be a problem—or does he refer to the Prime Minister? If he refers to the Prime Minister, what is he going to do about her organised mendacity on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that phrase making an allegation against an individual Member of the House, to wit the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: Then it must be a shameless lack of candour.

Mr. Wakeham: It may be a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, but when he asks supplementary questions these days, what he says does not come as a great surprise to the Minister at the Dispatch Box. Thus, most Ministers come, like myself, prepared to answer his supplementary question with the phrase, "I have nothing further to add."

European Fighter Aircraft

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the European fighter aircraft.
In the summer of 1985, we agreed with the German, Italian and Spanish Governments on the essential characteristics of a European fighter aircraft, or EFA, and on arrangements for a phase of project definition to explore the technical content and cost of a programme to develop such an aircraft. Project definition has been completed successfully, and the four nations have now to decide whether to embark on full development of the aircraft. I am very pleased to say that the Government for their part have decided to do so, subject of course to similar affirmative decisions by our three partners, which I understand should be made shortly, and subject also to final negotiation of acceptable contractual terms and conditions.
EFA is needed by the Royal Air Force to replace its air defence Phantoms and ground attack Jaguars at the end of their lives and to complement the Tornado F3 air defence aircraft. The Warsaw pact is well equipped with modern high performance fighters, and an agile aircraft with the characteristics of EFA is essential to maintain effective air defences beyond the late 1990s. EFA will also have a secondary ground attack capability.
The specification for EFA which has emerged from project definition has been rigorously and realistically examined in comparison with a number of possible alternatives. After an exhaustive investigation, I am in no doubt that EFA is the best and most cost-effective option to fulfil this essential military role. The prime contractors will be the Eurofighter consortium for the aircraft as a whole and the Eurojet consortium for the EJ200 engine. British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce respectively will play key roles in these consortia, drawing on invaluable experience gained during the experimental aircraft programme and the XG40 engine demonstrator programme, both of which have been partly funded from the defence budget. Overall the United Kingdom will have a 33 per cent. work share in the development of the aircraft. This will open up major opportunities for British industry, and I estimate that the development task alone will give direct long-term employment to between 3,000 and 4,000 people in the United Kingdom.
The cost to the United Kingdom of full development will he some £1·7 billion. This will be accommodated within the planned defence expenditure totals published last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The EFA programme is of vital importance to the United Kingdom aerospace industry. Although the technology involved is highly advanced, it is based on concepts proven during project definition and by the various demonstrator programmes to which I have referred. We have insisted that the prime contractors accept a very tight commercial package and the contracts that we are drawing up will place the technical and financial risks firmly where they should be, on the industrial consortia rather than on the Governments. All subcontracts for the aircraft's equipment will be subject to competition.
EFA will fulfil a vital defence need in the best and most cost-effective way. It will continue the trend of successful European collaboration in aerospace. It will ensure that our industry remains in the forefront of this technology to the end of the century and beyond, while ensuring the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. I commend the Government's decision to the House.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's statement, after all the doubts and delays of the past, will be greeted with some relief within the Royal Air Force and in Britain's aerospace and defence industries. There will also be relief that on this occasion at least the Government have been forced to support British and European industry and technology as they did not do in the case of Nimrod and Westland. What will be the total cost to Her Majesty's Government of the whole project? take it that the £1·7 billion will not be the project's total cost. What will be the unit cost per aircraft to the United Kingdom?
Will the Royal Air Force get the 250 aircraft that it needs? Will the Secretary of State give the House that assurance? How many aircraft will be ordered by our European partners? We need to know that, because it affects the budget and unit costs. As the defence budget is under so much pressure, what projects will be cancelled and what commitments dropped to pay for the costs of this aircraft? Clearly, in view of the Government's nuclear obsession, no nuclear project will be dropped or cancelled.
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable public concern as to whether he and his Department are capable of managing such a complex project in view of the appalling record of successive Tory Defence Ministers on early-warning aircraft, radars, torpedoes and missiles and including the appalling record of the Secretaries of State for Defence since 1979? Will he now satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the House that he has the will on this matter to put his own house in order and not waste even more taxpayers' money?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for this decision. I agree that it is good to feel that the project is coming under way. The total cost has still to be defined absolutely, but I would expect it to be of the order of £6 billion to £7 billion when it is completed. There is no change in the United Kingdom's declared production offtake, which remains 250 aircraft. It is too early in the project to forecast with certainty the eventual size of the United Kingdom purchase, or indeed, other partners' purchases of EFA.
It is inevitable when anything is spent on defence that something else must make way for it in the programme. However, after exhaustive discussion, I am certain that this project is affordable within the defence budget. As a matter of interest, it is likely to be considerably cheaper than the Tornado programme, which we are already accomplishing successfully.
The right hon. Gentleman shows some courage in raising the management of those projects. As he knows, we have followed a policy over the past few years of a major change in the procurement process under the leadership of Mr. Peter Levene and the Procurement Executive. In the type of project that we are drawing up nowadays—EFA, is a typical example—the responsibility is placed firmly on the main contractor. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to my mentioning that all the cases that he


has cited of things that have gone wrong involved, in almost every case, contracts placed and drawn up under the previous Labour Administration which we have had to put right.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend extract more amusement or derision from the spectacle of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the Labour party Front-Bench spokesman, trying to disagree with a decision with which he really wants to agree?
Secondly, would my right hon. Friend not agree——

Mr. Bob Cryer: How much is the right hon. Gentleman going to receive from British Aerospace?

Mr. Tebbit: Nothing is the answer to that—nothing.
Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that on this occasion the British Government are taking their decisions on a major international project in a timely fashion, which enables us to lead rather than be dragged along behind?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I was somewhat relieved to find that the right hon. Gentleman supported this project, as he has not supported any of the others that have come forward recently. As for timeliness, I also agree with my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that, having made our decision, we should make that fact clear, as I am sure our partners will greatly appreciate Britain's leadership in this important European undertaking.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The progress being made with the project is good news for European defence and European co-operation. When does the Minister hope to have affirmative decisions from the other countries involved?

Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Having been in touch with all the other partners, I am confident that they will be making their decisions within the next week or two and that we may therefore expect firm decisions from them all in the near future.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. friend agree that this decision will be particularly welcome to British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, in that he has today announced that they are expected to be in the lead in respect of two essential aspects of the aeroplane? Does he further agree that his announcement brings to an end a period of uncertainty to which a material contribution was made by the constant poor-mouthing we heard from the Opposition Front Bench time and time again, when they seemed to be the only people willing to oppose the project?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. So much gloomy speculation is made in advance of the facts of such matters that it can discourage people. I pay tribute to the way in which British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce not only kept themselves working hard on the project but put a considerable measure of their own resources into it; they will feel very pleased with today's decision.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the French still have any interest in this aircraft and whether, if they decide to renew that interest, he will ensure that they will not receive quite the bargain they seemed to be pursuing a year ago?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not exclude the possibility of other countries joining or rejoining the project. I am bound to say that its form is clearly defined and I would not wish to interrupt its progress by any such negotiations. As for France, we are in close touch with the French in respect of many procurement matters. If at any point we can usefully collaborate with them, I should certainly be prepared to discuss that possibility.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the international procurement machinery which produced the Tornado was widely regarded as unnecessarily large and bureaucratic? What action will he take to prevent that being true in respect of the new project?

Mr. Younger: I have heard such views expressed at times, and I know that my right hon. Friend knows a great deal about that matter. We will try to avoid any features of the Tornado organisation that were unduly bureaucrat-ic. However, it is worth recording that the Tornado project was outstandingly successful and has produced an aircraft which, almost without doubt, is the best of its kind in the world.

Mr. Brynmor John: The Minister will know that the unit cost will depend upon each country taking the number of aircraft in which it declares an interest. Any comparison with the Tornado and its unit costs must also depend on the numbers being taken up. What contractual provision is there for tying each country firmly to taking the number of aircraft that they say they want?

Mr. Younger: There is no procedure in existence to tie any of the countries to a future decision at the time of the next stages. This is not the stage at which we decide precisely how many individual aircraft each country will order; it is the stage at which we decide together to go forward, on the basis of the numbers already declared, to the full development stage. When the next stage is reached, each country will make its own decision, in the same way that we will.

Mr. John Cartwright: In view of the importance of promoting successful European co-operat-ion, can the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about the cost effectiveness of the EFA project? Will he confirm that, if research and development costs are taken into account, the unit cost of the project will be in the region of £36 million? How does that compare with the likely cost of the alternatives?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman will, I think, appreciate, we would never discuss unit costs of an aircraft of this sort publicly, for obvious reasons. I can tell him, however, that the greatest possible care and effort has been made to compare all the possibilities, including any aircraft which are available elsewhere and which could play a comparable role. I am absolutely satisfied that the proposed EFA is the most cost-effective way of meeting the threat that we are likely to face.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this project and on the 33 per cent. share, which will be welcomed by the hundreds of British Aerospace workers in the military aircraft division in Lancashire. Following his comments, I hope that he can confirm that we shall now see an end to the speculation from the Opposition that is sowing doubts in people's minds. Can he also confirm that this finally means the end of any involvement of the French as a major partner in the project?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that all those concerned in the various British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and many other factories in British industry will take this as a very encouraging development. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that those who have seen fit to cast doubts on the likelihood of the project's proceeding will now feel that they were wrong.
As for the work share, I believe that, together with subcontracting and business for many firms of all sizes, the project will employ many thousands before it is finished. In answer to my hon. Friend's question about French participation, we would always be willing to collaborate with France in any parts of such a project, but I do not think that at this stage we will wish to interrupt the progress of the four-nation plan to bring in another partner.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State recognise the potential importance of the project to Ferranti? Does he also acknowledge that, if we maximise the direct and indirect benefits of the work to British industry, it is vital that the high-technology contracts go to indigenous European consortia, rather than to foreign-based multinationals?

Mr. Younger: That point is certainly very much in our minds as these matters are decided. Contracting for the EFA, for all sorts of reasons, will clearly be on a basis of the best bid being accepted, but I am glad to say that British companies are well represented in all the alternatives.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will receive grateful thanks for his warmly welcomed announcement by my constituents who work at the military aircraft division headquarters of British Aerospace at Warton, in my constituency. Will he tell us whether he will now urge the other partner countries and the United Kingdom Government to pursue every export opportunity for the European fighter aircraft?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has played a prominent role in pressing for the aircraft. I am sure that he feels very glad about the decision.
As for export opportunities, we certainly hope—all the partners hope—that by the mid to late 1990s there will be a considerable market for this type of aircraft. We also hope that the EFA will be very well placed for overseas sales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The costs per unit will ultimately depend on the market. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell what market assumptions are made about purchases by our partners and, indeed, by third parties?

Mr. Younger: That will be a very relevant consideration when we come to the necessary decision about production

investment. So far, we have concentrated on ensuring that the staff requirement for the EFA suits our own needs, and we believe that it will also suit export needs.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend's welcome announcement is an endorsement of industry in Britain, and a commitment to the defences of Britain and of NATO. The Jaguar and Phantom aircraft will require replacement in about the mid-1990s. Is the EFA project on line and on time for that?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I can confirm that we aim for EFA to come into service in the late 1990s, which should be just about the right time. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that it is because we have extremely capable industries in Europe, which can without any difficulty or doubt embark on such a complicated project, that we are able to make progress of this sort. I think that it is very important from the point of view of Eurospace industry that the project should be successful and I am sure that it will be.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the definition of the plane include evading radar, in which case, would it not be cheaper to buy single-engined Cessnas of the type that flew into Red square in Moscow and to put the investment into civilian aircraft, in which this country is lagging behind, to the extent that British Airways is almost totally dependent upon Boeing? Why are those huge sums so readily available for such a project when the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards committee had the greatest difficulty in applying their technology, for example, to kidney machines? Why cannot the National Health Service, education and social services have that sort of money put into them to create jobs?

Mr. Younger: I am sure that people in British industry who are hoping and expecting to get a lot of work for many years out of the project will note that the hon. Gentleman is pretty hostile to the whole idea. With regard to spending the money on other things, I do not see a great benefit in having the most marvellous kidney machines or whatever in this country if the country is unable to defend itself when it needs to.

Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will greatly reassure many of us in the north-west. Will he outline the mechanism for work sharing that will be used on the project to reflect the number of aircraft that each nation decides to buy, when it decides to buy them and, more specifically, to reflect the occasions when a country such as ours finds exports on its own? That country may find that, if there is a set percentage from the outset, a lot of the work is carried out by other member countries.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about work share. At present, we are talking about the work share in the full development phase. That is based on the declared numbers now, which gives the United Kingdom a 33 per cent. share of the work in that full development stage. In future, when we come to decisions on production investment and the production stage, the work share will be defined on the basis of the aircraft ordered. One of the great benefits of such a collaborative effort is that, in the overseas sales, all the partners benefit from the production of the aircraft. That is why costs are containable in this high-technology project. It means that


everybody benefits from the export sales made, although the country that does the exporting has a greater benefit than any other.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind the fact that subsequent business today is under a guillotine. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4 o'clock and then move on.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept the key importance of the project for the regional economy in Britain, in the areas that are dependent upon the aerospace industry? In designing the project, has he had an opportunity to study the regional implications throughout Europe of such public procurement decisions, which will be important for job opportunities in many European regions? Will he address himself to the question raised by the official Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), about the defence role of the aircraft and confirm that the aircraft is to be involved in conventional, non-nuclear activity?

Mr. Younger: On the regional implications, we expect each member country to have its own policies on those matters. As far as we are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the British aerospace industry is fairly well spread throughout the country, and various policies have been followed to try to spread it more widely. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the contracting of the project will be spread throughout the European industry. I think that that is the main reassurance that he needs.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Does my right hon. Friend remember that only a few months ago both the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) went to Bristol and one or two other aerospace constituencies in an attempt to frighten constituents into voting Labour, on the basis that the project would be cancelled? The lie has now been given to their rumourmongering and attempt to frighten.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the EJ200 will be available for the first production unit of EFA, or will an interim engine be used in the meantime?

Mr. Younger: I note my hon. Friend's initial remarks. It does not surprise me in the least to find that scare stories that are not based on fact can be dealt with easily by him. It is clear that those concerned listened not to the other advice but to his advice, which is right.
I understand that good progress is being made on the EJ200 engine. A decision will be made fairly soon on how long the interim engine solution will last before the main proper engines can be introduced.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State gracefully admit that the Opposition have always seen the need for this role and that every Labour Member representing a constituency in the east of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), in whose constituency Ferranti is, have approached management and Ministers about the project? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by

"best bid", which is the phrase that he used in answer to my hon. Friend the Member the Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)? Will this take into account the real needs and overheads of research and development, since Ferranti has been a world leader in this area of technology?

Mr. Younger: We take into account the bids that are submitted in the round. We do not necessarily consider only price. We take into account what is put into the bid, the technology and the reputation of the firm that lies behind the bid. Having said that, we look also for the best bid that we can get.
It is fair to say that Opposition Members have frequently advocated projects such as the EFA, and have done so genuinely. The trouble is that they seem to forget that when voting for huge reductions in the defence budget and advocating the abolition of the Defence Sales Organisation. What they say to constituents is sometimes not compatible with what they say in Parliament.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public generally and those in the Royal Air Force especially will see the EFA as another example of the Government giving the RAF the aircraft that it needs to carry out the tasks that it has been assigned? Many of the comments coming from other quarters will be seen for what they are—scaremongering and nothing to do with reality. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the RAF will be delighted that the prime contractors will be responsible for the jobs as assigned?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that the RAF is unanimous in the view that the EFA is the right aircraft to meet the threat that it, the RAF, will be required to meet. That is an important factor in considering whether it is right to spend the sums that will be involved on the project.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is considerable doubt among the public generally and those who are knowledgeable about the defence industry about the competence of the Ministry of Defence to manage projects such as the EFA? To plead in aid one individual—Peter Levene—does little to allay this fear. It will continue unless there is a clear sign that the Ministry is to be strengthened.
May we have some assurances about the response of the Secretary of State and representatives of other Governments who are involved in the project to overtures that are likely to come from the United States that it should be a partner in the project?

Mr. Younger: As I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), we do not exclude the possibility of other nations participating in this programme. We shall be prepared to discuss that if any proper proposals are made to the partners on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the contracting problems of the Ministry of Defence. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who knows more than most about this subject, that any observer will know that a number of serious things have gone wrong with contracting in this areas in recent years. Any serious observer will agree, however, that major steps have been and are being taken to put matters right, and that the new forms of contract, of which the EFA is a clear example, do not have in them the bad features of the old contracts which led to cost


overruns. It is my determination to try to ensure that in contracting practice from now on there will be much less likelihood of any overruns of the sort that we have had in the past.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this project above all it is essential to ensure that the radar equipment and all the electronics are supplied by British and other European contractors and not from across the Atlantic?

Mr. Younger: I hope that all these major items will be supplied with the maximum participation of British firms. I cannot give a blanket guarantee that, whatever the bids that are put in, British firms will have preference over all others. Above all, we are looking for value for money and the best hid, taking all factors into account. I am sure that that is the right way in which to proceed and to avoid cost overruns of the sort that have occurred in the past.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the statement, but was my right hon. Friend surprised to hear the Opposition refer to difficulties with torpedo programmes? Will he confirm that, when the Government took office, they brought the Sting Ray torpedo programme under control——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made a statement on the European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Brazier: —and ensured that it would be the best of its kind in the world?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps I tended to be rather too kind to Opposition Members by not rubbing in too much the fact that most of the sad failures in procurement policy were contracts engaged in during their time in government. But I do not make too much of that.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister take this opportunity to refute the untrue allegations made by

Conservative Members that we have opposed the project? If any confusion has been caused, it is because of the Government's procrastination in making up their minds. That is why we welcome the fact that the programme is going ahead.
In his statement and in answer to questions, the Secretary of State said that the plane will come into operation in the late 1990s. On 8 December and 26 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that the plane would go into service in the mid-1990s. Are we to understand that there has been a five-year slippage since January, or is the plane due to go into service in the mid to late 1990s?
Will the Secretary of State be a little firmer on the radar issue? When will the suite for the aircraft be ordered? Will we be in the ridiculous situation that we were in with the Tornado and type 23 frigates? There was a first-class vehicle with no radar, no combat capability, and no command and control system, because of the Government's appalling mismanagement of our defence economy.

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that his voice is the real one from the Opposition about welcoming the project. He should have a word with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who appears to he deeply hostile to the project. Perhaps I could leave it to them to sort it out between themselves. [Interruption.] No problem.
As regards the date, I said the mid to late 1990s. Perhaps I was being unduly cautious. I hope that it will be ready for service about the mid-1990s.
As I said earlier, when the Government decide which consortium is to produce the radar, responsibility will be firmly placed on one main contractor. It will be required to provide the radar to specification and on time before it gets paid. That is the incentive contract, which is our real security for procurement decisions from now on.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Foot: May I raise a point of order that arises out of Question Time, Mr. Speaker? I understand that you called the Secretary of State for Wales to order because he used the word "hypocrisy" or "hypocrite". Of course, all efforts to raise the standard of language that is used by Ministers of the Crown are highly commendable; we understand what an arduous task you must have in that respect. But is your ruling unduly restrictive?
I recall a famous occasion—it was a bit before my time, but it happened in the House—when Mr. Lloyd George was dealing with the leader of the Social Democrats of the day, who crossed the Floor and assisted the Conservatives at the time. Lloyd George said that he objected not so much to his crossing the Floor but to the "slime of hypocrisy" that he left behind.
Ruling that out of order is a restrictive method of reply and use of language. There are many occasions, particularly when dealing with this Administration, when we must use the word "hypocrisy" to be accurate.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with the matter. I thought that I heard the right hon. Gentleman accuse another hon. Member of hypocrisy. That is unparliamen-tary. To use the word in a general sense would not be unparliamentary.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the matter of parliamentary language, it will be within your knowledge that, at 10 o'clock this morning, I asked the learned Clerk why, on Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to use the words "organised mendacity", why I was equally allowed to do so on Wednesday, and why, by Friday, the term had become unacceptable. Will you explain?

Mr. Speaker: I was not present at that time on Friday, but I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was in the Chair at the time, took the right decision in the matter.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a different point of order arising out of Question Time, Sir. In answer to question No. 3 today relating to the coal industry, the Secretary of State for Wales said that not a word had been heard from the Opposition Front Bench since certain comments made by the Minister of State in the Welsh day debate. My clear recollection is that, the day after that debate, in an attempt to divert attention from the humiliation that the Secretary of State suffered in the debate, he issued through Conservative Central Office a statement——

Mr. Speaker: There must be a point of order to me. The right hon. Gentleman must not seek to continue——

Mr. Williams: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not seek to continue Question Time.

Mr. Williams: This is a legitimate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Misleading the House, even inadvertently, is and always has been subject to a point of order. I have given you, Sir——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the right hon. Member that he is attempting a continuation of Question Time.

Mr. Williams: I am not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had a long run on question No. 3. The final hon. Member to be called was from the Opposition Front Bench. If there was any misunderstanding or disagreement with what the Secretary of State said, he should have disagreed with it then and not now. I cannot hear a point of order on the matter. This is a continuation of Question Time. I call Mr. Madden.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. It is an attempt to continue Question Time.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that, on Friday, I raised with you an article that appeared in The Guardian that morning concerning the Economic League. At column 1100 of Hansard, you said that you would consider the article over the weekend. I thought that I should report to you and to the House that I contacted the Economic League this morning. It confirmed that it holds information about me——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman has written to me, asking me to look at it as a matter of privilege. He knows that he cannot now raise it on the Floor of the House. I shall consider carefully what the hon. Member has said in this letter that I have in my hand.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to the point of order that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), Mr. Speaker. I once wrongly said in the House that a Conservative Member was a "bloody hypocrite". I was quite rightly instructed by the Speaker to withdraw. I withdrew the word "bloody". I never withdrew the word "hypocrite". Why is it right for me to get away with the word "hypocrite" but not right for other hon. Members to say that somebody is a hypocrite?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the whole House will agree that we need to ensure that we do not allege any dishonourable motive of any kind on the part of an hon. Member. In answer to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I stated that it was perfectly in order to use the word "hypocrisy" in a general sense, but not of each other.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have received a letter asking whether privilege is involved in the Economic League's activities. Since Friday, the Economic League has been making further statements about hon. Members and the files that it keeps on them. The matter is important and urgent. It is clearly a serious attack on democracy in this country.
When do you expect to be able to report to the House on your deliberations on what appears to be a breach of privilege of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I received the letter just before I came into the Chamber. I have not yet had time to consider it.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you come to examine the article in The Guardian about the Economic League's blacklist, will you bear in mind that to appear on the Economic League's blacklist—I am mentioned in the article as being on the blacklist because I went to Chile —s for some of us a badge of honour? Will you bear in mind also the separation between hon. Members, who cannot be harmed, and others who are not able to reply and whose job prospects may be adversely affected by that sort of conclusion?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about "organised mendacity", Mr. Speaker, you said that the matter was dealt with on Friday by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I heard my hon. Friend, and I think that hon. Members should know, if they have not already read Hansard, exactly what he said, because it is important.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the matter was dealt with entirely correctly by the occupant of the Chair at that time. It is not for me to pass judgment on what he said on that occasion.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman on a matter that happened on Friday. He should have raised the matter then.

Mr. Skinner: But——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance Bill

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 104

POWER TO DESIGNATE AUTHORITIES

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 57, line 10, leave out clause 104.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 158, in page 57, line 10, at beginning insert 'After 1st April 1995'.
No. 159, page 57, line 11, leave out 'in his opinion' and insert
following a report under subsection (1A) below, he believes that—".
No. 160, in page 57, line 16, at end insert—
(1A) Before designating an authority under this part the Secretary of State shall produce a report showing the extent to which the accountability of that authority to its electorate has been affected by the provisions of Part I of this Act.".
No. 161, page 57, line 12, after second 'the', insert 'preceding financial'.
No. 162, in page 57, line 19, after the second 'the', insert 'preceding financial'.
No. 163, in page 57, line 33, leave out from 'and' to end of line 38, and insert—

"(a) these principles shall be the same for all authorities;
(b) these principles shall be notified to authorities by October in the preceding year.'.

Dr. Cunningham: As the Bill stands, part VIII is entitled "Limitation of Charges Etc" and clause 104, the first clause in that part of the Bill, sets out the arrangements under which the Secretary of State for the Environment will have powers retrospectively to control, cap or reduce the poll tax of every local authority in England. Later on there is an exemption for authorities with budgets of less than £15 million a year. However, that is a sweeping. general central power given to Ministers under these proposals. Again, we see exploded the Government's claim that poll tax is a tool to make local government accountable to the electorate. Here we have the Government taking powers to ensure that, whichever way the electorate votes or whatever it decides about the local authority decisions in its area, the Government can countermand those decisions.
Under these proposals, the Secretary of State will have the power to order councils to reduce the level of poll tax. even after they have started to collect it and have implemented a budget based upon it. That will not only add to the financial and administrative burdens placed upon local authorities, but will throw budget strategies into chaos and further increase the powers of central Government over those communities. The implementation of these powers will cause huge disruption, whenever and wherever they are used.
What is clear in this part of the Bill is that the poll tax is not about local accountability. It is about cutting the spending, the services and, above all, reducing the independence of local government yet again. We suspect that it is especially aimed at elected Labour authorities. Implicit, too, in those proposals is the idea that accountability is all right and will be satisfactory for authorities with small budgets of under £15 million. However, different parameters apply to authorities with budgets in excess of that arbitrary figure.
The inclusion of these powers gives the game away. Repeatedly, the Secretary of State has said that the poll tax will improve accountability and the responsibility of voters. He has argued that more people will vote as a result of the poll tax. I hope that he is right at least in that aim. I want more people to vote in local elections. However, what is the point? The point is totally undermined by the fact that, however those people may decide to vote on the level of their budget or services, the Secretary of State is reserving the right to himself to change the implications of their vote, and he is doing so on arguments which, frankly, do not bear scrutiny.
As the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has pointed out, community charges, which are to replace domestic rates, will change rapidly from year to year and will bear little relation to local spending. That has been pointed out to Ministers in Committee over and over again. Changes in grants and changes in the national business tax made by Ministers could, and almost certainly will, have serious repercussions on the level of poll tax. Again, we may see fluctuations and major changes which do not result from decisions taken at local level. Therefore, the ability of local authorities to adjust their income to take account of such changes is threatened by those proposals.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy also pointed out,
that community charges
—that is the poll tax—
will be heavily dependent on variations in population and changes in the Government's assessment of a Council's need. This will considerably weaken the link between charges and council spending.
It has been pointed out previously that changes in spending, up or down, in local authorities can be affected by a variety of factors. They do not necessarily have anything to do with either competence, or, for that matter, incompetence, profligacy or efficiency. Changes in expenditure, up or down, are determined by a variety of often very complex factors and decisions.
Let us examine the implications of all this in a little more detail. Councils normally begin working on their budgets in the autumn. They come to their budget-making meeting in the early part of the year. They announce their budget and they fix a poll tax by 1 April, which is now the legal requirement. Election campaigns then begin. Elections take place in the first week in May. After these elections, after an authority has set and announced its budget, fixed its poll tax, and fought and won an election —in other words, it has gained the approval of the voters —the Secretary of State decides that he will overturn the whole procedure. He decides to designate the authority under the provisions of clause 8 of the Bill. The whole thing becomes a farce. The determination of the budget,

the setting of the poll tax, the putting of all the arguments to the local electorate are all a farce, because Ministers can then overturn and undermine the whole procedure, which includes the decision of the electors themselves. That is done by enforcing a retrospective change in the poll tax and, therefore, in the budget and the programme of the authority. First, this is done in the name of accountability and, secondly, of improving efficiency.
It beggars belief that these proposals can be put forward in that way, because they will do exactly the opposite. They will undermine accountability and they will cause disruption, inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the administration, not just of finances but, more importantly. of important local services. That was wonderfully summed up by the Minister for Local Government in Committee who, when talking about those powers, stated:
As I have already described, such procedures will enable us to use our charge capping powers to bring rapid relief to hard-pressed charge payers faced with excessive demands from authorities which, for some reason, seem quite irrationally to have no regard for the interests of their electors." [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 March 1988; c. 1484.]
It is difficult to find a better example of doublespeak.
The decision of the electors as recorded in the ballot box—presumably a decision that displeases the Minister and makes him decide to invoke his powers—is described by the Minister as
irrationally to have no regard for the interests of … electors.
What if the electors have chosen an authority of their persuasion and a council programme to their liking? That can hardly be described as irrational. Voting for a council of their choice is the conscious decision of people in a democratic society—but not a bit of it under this Government because that choice can and no doubt will be cynically set aside by central controls as it has been under the rate-capping proposals. At bottom, the proposals are yet another major central power for Ministers over democratically elected local government. They give Ministers the power to act in defiance of decisions of the local electors and against their express wishes as recorded in a secret ballot.
The Labour party is unwilling to accept such proposals or that such powers should be given to Ministers. That is why we have tabled the amendment to delete the whole miserable clause from the Bill.

Mr. David Wilshire: Like the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I too am sorry that these provisions are in the Bill, but, unlike Opposition Members, that is not because I regard the provision as wrong, but simply because the antics of the lunatic few on the Left have made the clause necessary. We should focus on that. We should be sorry for the fact that the clause is here, but we should consider why it is necessary and, if the clause is ever to be deleted, we should focus attention on the fact that local government must try to put its house in order. If local government goes on making community charge capping necessary, that is real proof that we have weak local government in this country because, by definition, local government which does not co-operate with the Government of the day is weak. [Interruption.] I shall explain exactly what I mean in a moment.
If one is to have a successful democracy in any country, one needs strong local government. I am not against strong local government but, because of the way in which it is behaving at the moment, I do not believe that it is


strong. The evidence about why the community charge-capping clauses are necessary is overwhelming. At the moment, at least 10 councils are overspending by more than £100 per head. Indeed, two are overspending by over £200 per head and one by the gross amount of over £300 per head. If such sums of money are charged over and above the average community charge in future, any responsible Government, of whatever political colour, is duty bound to act on behalf of the country as a whole.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) suggested that the clause may be aimed at Labour authorities. I hope that it is because that list of 10 councils which are high-spending are Labour authorities which must be called to account.

Mr. Tony Banks: When is the hon. Gentleman going to get it through his thick head that one reason—the major reason—why Labour local authorities, such as the 10 that he is talking about are such high spenders is that they have the greatest concentration of need within their areas? Until he recognises that, I am surprised that he even gets up to make a speech.

Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but when I examine the record and detail of those and other authorities, what I discover is gross inefficiency, gross mismanagement, and gross over-staffing. When such authorities put all those things in order, I will listen to the hon. Gentleman's pleas about money. In all these debates, and especially in this debate, the comments of Opposition Members are predictable.

Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to recognise that the Opposition are predictable. That is because we believe in people having the right to an unfettered democratic choice in local elections to elect the council they choose as being in their best interests without such draconian powers which, if the hon. Gentleman were describing them in eastern Europe, he would call Soviet.

Mr. Wilshire: I am coming to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I am grateful to him for raising it so that we can talk about it in a minute. However, before I come to that point, I want to mention something else that the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks —that the clause gives the game away. Indeed it does, but the game that it gives away is that the Labour party has not the slightest intention of learning the lessons of the past; nor does it seem to have the slightest intention of co-operating. That underlines the fact that this clause is absolutely necessary because Opposition Members have given the game away about their future intentions.
The opposition to the clause is predictable. It starts by saying that the provisions are a restriction of local freedom. They are not, and I shall explain in a moment why I take that view. It suggests that the clauses are not necessary if local accountability works properly. Earlier in the Report stage, I made the point that exemptions and rebates were not the avenue down which we should go. I believe that community charge capping is the quid pro quo for exemptions and rebates because it is they that undermine local accountability.
The Opposition are revealing that they have a totally flawed view of the role of local government and an even more flawed view of local government's relationship with central Government. They are also revealing that, despite

harping on certain minorities, they intend to do their level best to ignore the need to protect the minority of voters in a Left-wing Labour authority. Such a minority needs thought and protection as much as any other minority.
If one thinks through the real role of local government, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that community charge capping is absolutely inevitable. If one thinks about local government and how it arises, one realises that it comes from two different things. It comes first from a feeling of "localness"—I shall say something about that later—but also from the need to organise national services on a local basis. The first of those roles—the expression of a local view—is the truly local role of local government. with which no Government should seek to interfere. It is the second of the roles in which central Government becomes involved—the need to deliver national services on a local basis. Central Government must oversee that and can dictate its standards to local government.
That point enables me to answer the point that the hon. Member for Copeland raised. Local government's form. powers and finances all derive from here in Parliament. If Government can define those things, Government can limit them; that makes community charge capping inevitable. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I should say that no party in this country believes that local government can be absolutely free of obligation. We in Parliament insist that local government must empty dustbins and provide free education for every child over the age of five.
Would the hon. Member for Copeland defend the ballot box locally if a group of local electors voted in a county council that was pledged not to provide education until children were six? Would the Opposition argue that that is a matter for the ballot box locally, or would they, like me——

Mr. Jeff Rooker: If a group of councillors fought a county council election on the promise that they would provide nursery education for the under-fives and that resulted in a higher poll tax, I would defend it. That is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to stop today, but that is where there should he free choice. If people want to vote for free school education outside the statutory system, they should be able to vote for it. if they are prepared to pay for it. Yet that is what the hon. Gentleman will not allow.

Mr. Wilshire: That is a fascinating smokescreen. The hon. Gentleman's silence on my point proves exactly what I was saying, which is that the Labour party, like us, believes, properly, that there are certain things that Parliament can force local authorities to do, such as educate everybody over the age of five. That is absolutely right. All parties believe that there are some things that local government must do. Equally—this is the other point behind the smokescreen—every party has several things which it believes local government should or should not do, with which other parties disagree.
Instead of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) lecturing me on education and the under-fives, let us consider grammar schools or parents and children being able to opt out. If I understand Opposition Members, they would compulsorily require local government to get rid of grammar schools and they would prevent parents from opting out of the state system.


That is the Labour party, properly, choosing its policies. But equally it must be absolutely right for the Conservative party to decide what it believes is a priority, and it wishes local government to behave responsibly on finance. Faced with the evidence of local authorities not behaving responsibly, this party believes that it must act.

Mr. Kevin Barron: My local authority has never been rate capped in the nine years of this Government. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that its decision to expand nursery education in the past eight years is wrong?

Mr. Wilshire: I cannot think how the hon. Gentleman reaches that conclusion from what I said. That is not the point. If, while acting in a financially responsible way, a local authority wishes to exercise discretion and go beyond its statutory obligations, that is a matter for it. I am merely arguing that there will come a point beyond which a local authority cannot go.
The Conservative party is saying that financial responsibility is a key element in strong local government. That is why, at the beginning of my comments, I said that at present we have a financially irresponsible group of councils which are therefore democratically weak. If we can establish strong finances, it then lies with the Government to provide limits, and those limits will be enforced through capping. That is proper and inevitable.
The limits are set in four ways. Central Government have no choice but to take into account the national economy. When 27 per cent. of public expenditure is spent by local government, no central Government in Whitehall can ignore it. If several local authorities intend to flout the interests of the national economy, capping becomes absolutely inevitable and is absolutely right. The same is true for the local economy.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked me about local discretion on nursery education. That is all very well, but the spending power of the local community must be taken into account and the council must not take more than the community can afford to give. One must accept that if a borough has a vastly high community charge, it will drive people out selectively.

Mr. Barron: Is that not a matter for the community that elects people to local councils, and not for the Secretary of State?

Mr. Wilshire: No. As I said earlier, there is the question of a minority. The Labour party is for ever lecturing us about its views on minorities. In return, I must point out that, if a Left-wing militant council is trying to soak the local community, there comes a point when somebody must stand up for the minority who are being asked to pay vastly excessive charges.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my local authority, Calderdale, which has not been controlled by Labour since 1974, two years ago had the second highest rate rise of 41 per cent. when it was run by the Conservative party? That was because the rate support grant had been cut from 85 per cent. in 1979 to 54 per cent. now and it had absolutely nothing to do with a Left-wing Labour council.

Mr. Wilshire: There are authorities and authorities. I am delighted to say that my borough council this year has reduced its rate by 73 per cent. and is providing better services than ever before. But if we bandy about the figures of small authorities, where will it get us?
Opposition Members will be relieved to hear that this may be the last speech that I make on Report, but I shall not stick to that intention if they bait me much further.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have been following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully and if I understand it rightly, having found it, the hon. Gentleman believes that the mandate given to central Government is stronger than that given to local government, so central Government have the right to overrule local government in the interests of the people of that area. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the other side of that logic—that if central Government of a different colour decide that a local authority is not maintaining services to a required standard, they can direct local government to spend more on those services by virtue of the same sort of mandate?

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman follows the argument through, he will find that if it is right for Parliament to decree the dustbins shall be emptied and that the over-fives shall be educated, then it is proper for Parliament to decide that the over-fives shall be educated. Naturally—that is the role of central Government. As I said earlier, local government arises from two wholly separate areas: the local feeling of differentness and separateness, which cannot be fettered, and the national provision of services on a local basis. A Government must involve themselves in that latter area.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do to protect minorities who vote Labour in areas where mean-minded, miserly, Tory councils are elected which do not provide adequate social services and many other services? Will he also protect the rights of those minorities?

Mr. Wilshire: One of the best ways to protect any minority in a local community is to have a well-run Conservative council.
I suspect that this will be my last speech on Report, if I reach the end of it.

Mr. Jerry Steinberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year the highest rate increases are in Tory-controlled authorities? For example, in Gillingham in Kent the rate rise was 42 per cent., in Melton in Leicestershire it was 41·2 per cent., in Suffolk Coastal it was 39·1 per cent., in West Wiltshire it was 41·4 per cent. and in Brentwood in Essex expenditure over target was 282 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that those local authorities should be rate capped?

Mr. Wilshire: It occurs to me that perhaps an adjournment would be in order so that the Labour party can present one script. On the one hand we are being told that Parliament should increase the base services that must be provided and on the other that we should not spend money to provide them. That is a fascinating argument against itself.

Mr. Richard Holt: When considering the point that the percentage increases may have been large, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that my constituents in


Middlesbrough pay the highest rate poundage in the whole country—282p in the pound? Although this year's rate rise in percentage terms is small, it is penal.

Mr. Wilshire: That is why authorities with small budgets arc exempted from these clauses. The real risks to local and national economies come from the huge spending authorities which spend vast sums rather than from the small ones, many of which were on that list.
We are debating this clause for one reason only, and that is the antics of the militant few. Without them this clause would not have been necessary. The Labour party has made the whole Bill necessary and has made community charge capping necessary. Sadly, I see no chance or intention of the Labour party changing what it has done in the past. If its current campaign of misinformation and calls to defy the law are anything to go by, the Labour party has no desire to help, and no chance of helping anyone. All it will do is harm services both locally and nationally. All it will do is damage local government and make it weaker than it is at the moment. Worst of all, if it persists in this manner, the Labour party will undermine democracy in this country.

Mr. David Bluakett: If anyone is undermining democracy it is those who have contempt for the electorate. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has spelt out—as have Ministers in Committee and in the House—the way in which he believes that choice should be available only if it conforms with his opinion. Nothing but contempt is displayed by using words such as irresponsible, irrational and excessive when talking about the right of people to vote to choose the level and quality of service that they wish to have.
The Bill and clause 104 illustrate admirably the duplicity that exists in the thinking and attitude towards the poll tax. Only a week ago in this House—one can read this in Hansard—the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
Everyone should have the right, through the ballot box, to influence the level of service that is provided and the price that they must pay through their taxes. That is the essence of accountability and of responsible democratic control of the services provided by local authorities"—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol.131, c. 582.]
I cannot think of anything that undermines the principle laid down by the Secretary of State more than the idea of the icy fingers of poll tax capping.
The notion that people can choose what they want so long as they are not able to vote to spend the money to provide for their choice is not only duplicity, but runs extremely close to absolute contempt for the representative democratic system of our country. The Government, having taken control of the unified business rate, having changed the proposals in the Bill—as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said—regarding the distribution and organisation of the grant system so that equalisation between communities and the way in which we can protect those that have a low resource base is destroyed, and having lifted central control to 75 per cent. of all local government spending, now propose to lift it to 100 per cent.
When the Rates Act 1984 was debated, statements were made that were similar to those made today by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The Government spoke about minorities being oppressed by the majority. They talked about people who lived in the high-rated areas of particular authorities having to pay for services voted for

by those who did not pay or, according to them, did not pay sufficient into the coffers. They talked about people needing to feel the pain of expenditure on the services that they received. They devised a tax that they claimed, in its early stages, met the criteria that everyone would pay something and that people would feel that they were paying towards the expenditure on the services that they received. The Government went further and called that tax a charge that would be levied on the services delivered to the people who had voted for them.
Today, as at other times, we have reflected on the Prime Minister's decision, announced in October—it was not in the manifesto—that the Government would not allow people to vote for what they believed to be right and that they would not allow them to raise money to spend on services, but that the Government would do a double somersault—described by the current Secretary of State for Education and Science as intellectually unjustifiable —and bring in poll tax capping.
The last vestige of justification in terms of making people pay for what they vote for has now been stripped away. The poll tax capping reveals the Bill for what it is —an attempt to undermine and dismember the whole concept of public services. People will be told that they have one choice only—the choice of the market economy. People can do what they like, say what they like, think what they like, but in the end they will get what the Conservative Government believe is right for them.
Imagine if someone went into a supermarket and chose from the shelves the long-lasting, high-quality, value-for-money goods that they are willing to buy rather than cheaper goods that they saw on the shelves below. Just as they reach the check-out counter, however they hear over the Tannoy the voice of the matron or the sneer of the bully who suddenly steps forward and says, "I'm afraid you may have decided that that is the produce you want, but we have decided otherwise. In this supermarket you buy only the discredited and low-quality goods that we have decided are good for you."
4.45 pm
What sort of society would we be faced with if, instead of announcing that one could not buy the goods that one wanted in that supermarket, there was an announcement over the Tannoy that it was a BUPA market where one could have only the quality of health care that one could buy through private insurance in the private market? Imagine if it was announced over the Tannoy that people had to have private schooling, that people had to have private old people's homes and that the only choice was the private choice of private privilege. That is what is offered in the Bill.
The Bill represents a major dupe of the concept of citizenship and the concept of people choosing freely what they will and are willing to pay for the services that they want for their children, parents or themselves.
We should be concerned not simply with exposing the fact that the poll tax is unfair, unjust and unequal—the House has debated that at length and many Conservative Members have voted with us. We should also expose, once and for all, the idea that the Government believe in diversity and in freedom of choice. We should expose the idea that the Government believe that people have the right to determine for themselves the quality, extent and quantity of goods and services that they wish. That principle has gone out of the window once and for all.
As the debate is being reported I hope that we can get over to people outside that others have been called irrational, excessive and irresponsible for wishing to vote for decent education, decent care of the old and the disabled. That is the biggest insult that the Government could ever give to the electorate. The electorate will give its answer on 5 May and at the general election.
Poll tax capping should be the final nail that scuppers the flagship and exposes the bilges to the tide of public opinion. That public opinion will sweep us forward to victory and it will demonstrate that the nation rejects the concept and the principle behind the Bill.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Perhaps I could continue the parable told by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Say a customer goes into a shop and over the Tannoy to which the hon. Gentleman referred he is promised a certain type of goods. Let us say that the manager of that shop then changed the goods without notice and the customer walked out of the shop with totally different goods. That would be an extraordinary state of affairs and one would have thought that, in those circumstances, the customer should be protected.
Let me illustrate what happened in my career. I was a member of the Greater London council and I fought an election in May 1981 against Lord McIntosh. He put forward certain policies and was billed to the electorate of London as a moderate leader. Within 24 hours of his party being elected to power at the GLC, he was booted out by his party and within a year the electorate of London were faced with a 90 per cent. rate rise. Was that fair?

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose——

Mr. Leigh: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Roberts: If the Prime Minister resigned during this Parliament, would the hon. Gentleman expect there to be a general election rather than for the Conservative party to choose a new leader?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lord McIntosh was booted out.

Mr. Roberts: Well, what if the Prime Minister were booted out?

Mr. Leigh: That would be completely different. In May 1981, the leader of the opposition on the GLC fought the election on a moderate programme and within 24 hours —not one, two or three years—he was booted out.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak in a moment and to put his gloss on the circumstances.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Leigh: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for old time's sake, if for no other reason. He knows that Lord McIntosh, as leader of the Labour party

in London, fought on an election manifesto that was inherited by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), when he took over as leader of the GLC. There was no argument about policies. It was simply a question of personnel. Let us get it straight. In this case, we are talking about policies, not personnel.

Mr. Leigh: I am very fond of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but he knows perfectly well that the present hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) went round deselecting all of Lord McIntosh's friends. There was internecine war in the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman should ask Lord McIntosh what really happened when the moderates were kicked out of the GLC.
If Opposition Members do not accept that argument, let me put it this way. When I was a member of the GLC, it was under Conservative control and Sir Horace Cutler often had to deal with a Labour Government. The Labour Government at the time insisted that they were the masters of macroeconomic policy. I remember Sir Horace telling a Conservative group meeting that he had just been to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—for something and had been told that he could not spend the money. Sir Horace abided by the decision because he accepted, as local government has traditionally accepted, that we live in a unitary, not a federal, state and that central Government have the right to lay down macroeconomic targets by which local government must abide.
Although the Bill will ensure that, over time, local authorities will be more accountable to public opinion because of the new, more sensible rate support grant, because of the introduction of the community charge, which many more people will pay, and because of the introduction of the new business rate, we must legislate against a recurrence of what happened with the GLC in May 1981. That is especially true of the transitional period, during which an authority may use the transitional arrangements to impose excessive demands on community charge payers before it becomes truly accountable under the system. The capping power is a reserve power that will be used only rarely, but it is an essential safeguard that the Government must leave in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: One can always tell when the Government are short of support: the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) come to their aid. I am never sure whether it advances their cause. Many members of the Government will be horrified to read what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said today. I wrote down this sentence: "Non-co-operation with central Government is in my view the sign of weak local government." He believes that local government must be the lackey, whereas our tradition is that local government is a separate——

Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. That is what the hon. Gentleman said and I wrote it down as he said it.

Mr. Wilshire: I did not use the word "lackey".

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should read Hansard. I have quoted what he said.
The amendment shows the hollowness of the Government's argument. Amendments Nos. 157, 158, 159 and 160 deserve our support, and when it comes to the Division in half an hour I and my colleagues will vote for them. I am not so sure about amendments Nos. 161 and 162. They provide that, under poll tax capping, we would retain the system of rate capping, which means that authorities would be capped after the event. I see some logic in intervening in the relevant year rather than the subsequent year. To give an obvious example, my colleagues in Tower Hamlets thought that it was unfair that their rates were capped as a result of decisions taken by the previous Labour administration, which was entirely different politically. I accept the argument for that system being changed.
Instead of listening to the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Gainsborough and Horncastle I would rather listen to experts whose views on local government are objective, not subjective. When the Minister announced poll tax capping in the autumn, the lead article in the Local Government Chronicle said this:
Poll tax capping an illogical humbug.
Local Government Minister Michael Howard has finally destroyed the Government's argument in favour of community charge. Since the proposal surfaced … assorted secretaries of state and ministers have been declaiming whatever technical and financial problems it posed, the community charge had one over-riding merit—it would ensure the accountability of councils by giving every voter a direct stake in financial decisions.

Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No. Other hon. Members wish to speak and we have only half an hour left.
The system which the Government believe would make local government accountable has been proved to be defective. They must know that in their heart of hearts. The article in the Local Government Chronicle concluded:
To cap community charge smacks of dishonesty and selective vengeance.
That is reminiscent of the debate in 1984 on rate capping, when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said:
I do not believe that these powers should be given to the Minister."—[Official Report, 17 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 188.]
The former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Lord Rippon, said that the Bill which introduced rate capping was "deplorable", raised "major constitutional issues" and was a classic example of "elective dictatorship". When we reach the Division, I guess that it will be the fifth vote during the Report stage of this Bill when some Conservative Members will have the courage of their convictions and will vote against the Government's policy.
The Minister made his case in Committee on 17 March —this deals with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle—when he said:
Over time, the system"—
that is the poll tax—
will curb even a council which, ignoring the ultimate electoral consequences, irrationally embarks on a policy of excessive spending to the clear detriment of those whom it claims to serve. But the new system of local finance will not guarantee instantaneous relief from an outbreak of irrational behaviour where, perhaps to prove some kind of distorted political point, an authority decides on excessive spending policies contrary to all reason and to the interests of its electors. In such a situation the public will expect—quite

reasonably—that the Government should take some rapid action."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 March 1988; c. 1472–3.]
That summarises the Government's patronising, derogatory and nannying attitude to local government. They believe that Whitehall always knows best. The Government realise that they are in trouble because of arguments similar to the one advanced by the Minister that day.
I rephrase the Minister's remarks in this way. Over time, the system of poll tax will curb even a Government who, ignoring the ultimate electoral consequences, irrationally embark on a policy of excessive unfairness to the clear detriment of many of those whom they claim to be helping. The old electoral system does not guarantee instantaneous relief from an outbreak of irrational behaviour where, perhaps to prove some distorted political point, the Government decide upon an absurdly unfair taxation policy contrary to all reason and to the interests of all but their wealthy electors. In such a situation, the public—that is where the debate will go after today—will expect that anyone who can, including Opposition, Government Back-Bench Members and the House of Lords, should take rapid action. We have no doubt that they will. If only we had legislation to cap the Government when they embark upon Irrational, excessive policies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Decapitation."] Decapitation is an option, but it is slightly less likely to be produced.
5 pm
There are many other ways forward. The Government's folly is that they have not hearkened to advice from elsewhere. Instead of introducing masses of ever more complex legislation year after year in the search for a system that can be made to work, the Government should perhaps face up to what the Mail on Sunday recommended only yesterday and other papers have recommended before. The way to make councils accountable is to change the electoral system and have proportional representation for local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members say "Oh," because it would work, and they know that it would work; the only trouble is that such a system would not necessarily put as many of them into power as the present system. They are concerned not about local government working but about taking local government over.
No doubt the Minister will have seen the Mail on Sunday editorial early yesterday morning. As he knows, that paper does not always come out on our side; on the contrary, it often comes out on his. On this occasion, it said:
The best solution for the Government is to cut its losses and plump, albeit through gritted teeth, for a progressive tax based as much on ability to pay as on demand for services. And if the Government is serious about making local government properly accountable to its electors, it should stop fiddling about with taxes and bring in proportional representation for council elections. Radical, brave politician though she is, has Mrs. Thatcher the courage to do either or, preferably, both?
We now know that if the poll tax comes in—it is a very big "if"—the Secretary of State will ensure that every poll tax payer receives an at-a-glance guide to council efficiency on the back of his poll tax return to show him how his council compares to councils around the country. What it will not show is what independent studies say will happen under the poll tax. As the Minister knows, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has


calculated that if the community charge had been in operation between 1986 and 1988 not one authority in the whole of England would have been able to claim that changes in its spending per adult had been met by comparable changes in its community charge. For 29 authorities, variations in grant in that period would have meant that, even where they had cut their spending, the community charge would have increased. For 21 councils, community charge would have gone down when spending went up. For 228 councils, the community charge would have increased when spending increased, but faster. There will be no direct accountability anywhere. There will be no direct match between what councils spend and the poll tax that they levy. Nevertheless, we are to have capping—on a blanket basis involving the application of uniform principles. That will ensure that, in the end, whatever council is elected and no matter how many electors vote —it could be 100 per cent.—the Government could still say, "We know best."
The poll tax is meant to make local authorities accountable. We should ask, "Accountable for what and accountable to whom?" The Government have made their answer clear. The local authorities will be accountable not to their electors for carrying out the policies for which they have been elected but to central Government for administering central Government policies. If they do not do what central Government want them to do, they will be capped and given directions. For any democrat, the case against poll tax is overwhelming. Sadly, we do not have a Government of democrats.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I note that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has again stated his objection to rebates and to some of the exemptions included in the Bill. I would not accept any part of his analysis of the Bill, but no doubt he, as an honourable person, will be giving serious consideration to voting against Third Reading, as the Bill includes measures that he interprets as contrary to the principles of accountability.
Given all the pressures and devices in the Bill to force authorities to act within given parameters, it seems strange that we should then have capping. The majority of people may have decided—perhaps very firmly—on a policy that favours services. Under this provision, however, the Government can insist that such a policy is not followed. My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) were here earlier. In their constituencies, there is vast support among working people for the provision of services. Even if 75 or 80 per cent. of the electorate vote in local government elections in favour of spending their own money collectively to provide services and do things that they could not do individually, they will be stopped by diktat of a Government who can claim only 42 per cent. of the votes. That is an obscenity.
Some Conservative Members argue in favour of the Bill for the one simple reason that the proposal was included in their manifesto and that they must therefore stick with it solidly. I do not accept that argument. I ask them to consider what the manifesto said about the poll tax:
We will reform local government finance to strengthen local democracy and accountability.

The accountability argument has already gone out of the window over the question of joint and several liability. It goes out of the window entirely in the light of the poll tax capping provisions. Whatever local authorities decide to spend to provide services, they will be prevented from doing so. A local authority cannot be made accountable by being made to spend more money but only by being made to spend less.
The manifesto continues:
Local electors must be able to decide the level of service they want and how much they are prepared to pay for it.
The poll tax capping runs contrary to the manifesto commitment, which says that the local electorate must determine what services it wants and how much it is prepared to pay. I hope that those Conservative Members who stick with the rather simple notion that because the proposal appeared in the manifesto they must go along with it will take that on board, because we may then have some chance to do something about this obnoxious provision.

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wrote down what I said and then twisted it. I have written down what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said about manifestos, and I am anxious to check that I got it right. Was he saying that he does not go along with the idea of sticking with a manifesto?

Mr. Barnes: What is a manifesto? A manifesto commitment means something if it has been fully and fearlessly discussed by the electorate—if it has been put in front of them so that they can make a solid decision about it. In the last election, that did not happen with the poll tax, except in Scotland, where the proposal was solidly rejected. I accept that, all other things being equal, hon. Members are committed to their manifesto proposals, but all other things are not equal in this case. The poll tax was not a major subject of discussion at the last election and other issues and values are at stake. Democracy depends not just on a document on which people have voted but on feelings, understandings, pressures and democratic pluralism in society.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman will not commit himself to what is, I suppose, in his manifesto, would he commit himself to Labour party conference resolutions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We must not stray into manifestos. The hon. Gentleman is getting somewhat wide of the amendment. I am sure that he will address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I shall return to the main attack.
On Thursday we discussed contingency funding and grant provisions, and from the debate it was quite clear that the contingency fund provisions are not adequate. Problems have emerged about emergency expenditure and Parliament recently applied the Bellwin rules to expenditure on gale damage. That type of expenditure still requires local government money. The legislation will increasingly require the full amount to be met out of the poll tax provision rather than out of the unified business rate or from the grant provided by central Government.
That situation will be made excessively worse by the introduction of poll tax capping. When an emergency arises, an authority will have to spend money out of the


poll tax provisions to meet it, but will then be capped. The only way in which it will be able to meet its commitments in an emergency will be by further cutting the services and provisions in its area. The Minister needs to answer that point.

Mr. Tony Banks: I support the amendment. It is quite clear that this part of the Bill exposes the total hypocrisy of the Government. They have introduced the poll tax because they say that they want to make services more closely accountable to the electorate; then they come up with the proposal about poll tax capping.
The Government want to set up a system of local government finance that creates maximum pressure for the reduction of local council services, and they have done that in three stages. First, they have created a penal and unfair tax system that puts caring councils in the difficult position of having to impose the tax or cut services. Secondly, the tax gives a financial incentive to people in need of local services to vote against them. Thirdly, via poll tax capping, the Government give themselves the power to impose service cuts on councils and electorates that have not been bullied into making cuts themselves.
It is clear from the Government's proposed poll tax capping that they want to leave nothing to chance. The Government are not interested in local democracy because, ultimately, they do not trust the local electorate, believing that their judgments are preferable to those of local people elected to take the decisions. The Secretary of State has already given us his vision of what local authorities will be. He has said that they should meet once a year and should sit down and discuss the way that all the contracts for services are to be given to private companies.
Then, in the words of the Secretary of State, the councils will retire and have a good long lunch. The Secretary of State knows all about good long lunches. I notice from the latest figures that the Department of the Environment spent £66,000 on official hospitality last year. Perhaps that is what the Secretary of State thinks local authorities should do.
As I have said, this part of the Bill exposes the total hypocrisy of the Government. It will make the already difficult task of local authority treasurers in drawing up their budgets that much more difficult.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall be brief. I think that it is generally accepted that central Government are responsible for macroeconomic policy. However, there may be disputes in central Government about the efficacy of some aspects of macroeconomic policy. We have heard of a dispute between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the exchange rate. In the light of difficult decisions, that is perfectly understandable. It should not be in dispute that, if the Government are producing a poll tax in order to advance accountability, hon. Members and the electorate should be entitled to take them at their word.
In a speech on 19 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment uttered some graphic words. He said:
One Labour pressure group described the Community Charge as 'a straightforward attempt to create conditions for taxpayers'revolts against council spending plans.'
I have no doubt that some Conservative Members would say, "Hear, hear" to that. The Secretary of State went on:
They've got it in one! Councils who are efficient and frugal have nothing to fear. But with Community Charge

figures in some areas of £500–£600, of course local people will rebel. They will rebel against profligacy and inefficiency and throw the guilty councillors out.
The weapon of democratic accountability is a very powerful one for us Conservatives: use it. The message is: if you want a lower Community Charge—vote for it, and vote Conservative.
What happens if people do not obey the Secretary of State? The answer is that the Government will need back-up powers. Such powers are in the Bill and in the Scottish Act because the Government are fearful of democratic choice. They ought to come clean about that. Accountability is not written in concrete. It will vary. People may have a different view of the need over a five-year Parliament.

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose——

Mr. Douglas: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I intend to be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) wants to wind up.
If the Government alone are to decide, then let us have all the elections on one day and have the matter determined for 10 years so that the Prime Minister can continue to make her way through the parliamentary and economic process. Flexibility and democratic choice mean that people will have differing views of what is needed in different areas. We must have regard to other areas of power and of feeling within the system. That is truly what the Tories fear.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): The debate on these powers has largely been a re-run of the debate in Standing Committee. There have been one or two changes in the cast, but on the whole we have heard similar arguments. We are delighted to see back with us after his illness the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Quite clearly his illness has done nothing to dull his appetite for controversy. I think that he was the only speaker to advance the arguments beyond those that were put in Committee. He introduced to the debate the metaphor of the supermarket which, as far as I can recall, played no part in the previous proceedings on the Bill. I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman make use of that metaphor because it shows that all that we have been saying about the importance of value for money in the provision of local government services is at last getting home to the Opposition.
I do not think that the analogy was quite as compelling as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was. Of course, the relationship between the customer in the supermarket and the supermarket owner is not quite as unbridled as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. Transactions in the supermarket are always subject to the intervention of the trading standards officer, although I have to concede that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State probably does not often think of himself as a glorified trading standards officer.

Mr. Blunkett: Does the Minister accept that if we have poll tax capping it is unlikely that the trading standards officer will any longer exist?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept that anything of the kind is likely to happen.
One of the newcomers to the debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), raised a


point on the basis of some of the calculations by CIPFA. The hon. Gentleman should know that those calculations are based on a projection of the existing grants system and include, among other features of the existing grants system, the penalty system, which, of course, will not be part of the new regime. If such calculations are based on the existing grants system, it is not surprising that the results lead to anomalies.
We recognise that the existing grants system has instabilities that would lead to such results. That is one of the reasons why we think it important not to have that feature in the new grants system, but to have in its place a much more stable grants system that will enable people to assess to a greater and more effective extent the performance of their local authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister cannot confirm to the House that there is any certainty or objective agreement that the new system will produce for each local authority in England a commensurate rise in poll tax with a rise in spending and a decrease in the poll tax with a decrease in spending. There is no guarantee that that would follow from this legislation.

Mr. Howard: We are certainly objective. We intend to produce a given figure for a standard level of service, which will provide a ready reckoner on the basis of which people will be able to understand whether they are getting value for money.
We have made it clear on more than one occasion that we see the capping power introduced in the clause as a reserve measure. It is not a measure to be used as a matter of course or in the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). The people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose. Because of the greater accountability which the new system will introduce, all the people of the area will be paying towards the cost of the spending of that authority and no doubt they will take that into account.
Nevertheless, there is a need for a reserve power to deal with the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). There is a particular need for a reserve power during the transitional period in those areas where there will be a dual system running, with a combination of the rating system and the community charge and where accountability will not be as clear as we should like it to be when the system is fully in force. It is important that there should be such a reserve power—rarely, if ever used we hope—to protect the charge payers of an area against extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible local authorities.
All the evidence shows that, when the Government have intervened to extend such protection to ratepayers under the existing system, that protection has been welcomed by the people who live in the local authority areas concerned. We saw some of the results of that protection to the residents of Ealing during the election last year.

Mr. Blunkett: How would the Minister respond to the fact that within three months of rate capping being levied in the city of Sheffield the Conservatives lost two seats in an area that they had previously held for 60 years? Is he aware that such a swing would ensure that if the hon.
Member of Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) were standing for election on 5 May he would lose his seat on Sheffield city council?

Mr. Howard: We have to consider all the evidence. I do not suggest that it applies universally in all cases, but the evidence of the way in which people voted at the general election, when they had to decide between a Government who were prepared to extend that protection and a Government such as that who would be provided by the Labour party, which would abdicate all responsibility in those matters, shows that people have tended to vote, when they have had a real choice in those matters, for the party that would extend that protection.
The Labour party promised in its manifesto that it would no longer afford such protection and that it would let local authorities spend to their hearts' content. That is an extremely irresponsible attitude and an abdication of responsibility in an important area in which central Government have a role and should continue to have a role. Because we recognise the responsibilities of central Government to extend protection in those extreme circumstances in which it is necessary to intervene on behalf of local people we wish to keep a capping power in the legislation.

Mr. Rooker: The one thing which the clause reveals is the Government's total lack of confidence in their own legislation. I have faced incredulity when I have explained to people as honestly as I can—I have never been accused of not telling the truth about the Government's legislation —that twice as many people would be involved in direct payment, and that the Government's reason is that those people have the vote and that more people will be forced to vote because they will get a bill. Part of the theory is that people will have to pay for the consequences of the vote.
I have explained all that, and I have then reminded people that when they have voted, knowing what the poll tax will be because the budget will be fixed before the election, and the party which wins has a higher poll tax perhaps because it wanted to spend more on nursery education—or, in county council areas, on introducing concessionary bus passes for old age pensioners—once the election is out of the way the Government can say, "Hang on. You have won the election and you were honest about the poll tax, but we do not like your poll tax and we are ging to use section 104 of the poll tax legislation to change it retrospectively." People just do not believe me when I tell them that, because it contradicts all that Minister have said about accountability and democracy. The arguments about universal accountability go straight out of the window.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. The hon. Gentleman voted for the guillotine. We are to have a vote shortly.
The clause shows the Government's lack of confidence in their own legislation. If they were to replace the clause, they could get around the problem that they do not trust the electorate. In London and in the shires councils are elected for four years and they do not have to face their electorates annually. The answer is to replace the clause with annual elections. We would vote for that. There would not need to be a vote, as no hon. Member would


oppose such a measure. The Government could have on the nod a Bill for annual local elections all over the country.
That is Labour party policy. We have demanded it in the House and in Committee and we have published Bills, yet the Government are scared stiff to promote legislation for annual local elections. They would not even come to the House to force annual elections in metropolitan districts of the great cities such as Sheffield and Birmingham where in 1988–89 there is a gap because of the abolition of the metropolitan councils. We want that gap closed and we want annual elections in those areas and for every local authority. That is the way to bring about accountability and democracy in local government, instead of undermining those on both sides of the political divide who go into public life to serve their fellow citizens.
What self-respecting person will go into local government knowing that all his decisions will affect only one quarter of local government expenditure after the Bill instead of one half before the Bill? Why should they bother when they know that, even for a quarter of local government spending, even if they fight an election and win, the Government can say, "We don't like your budget. Here is a new budget." They can do that not only in May or June after the election but in any month during the financial year. They can even come back the following January and retrospectively change the local authority budget for that year.
That is absolutely outrageous. It has nothing to do with democracy or accountability. It has everything to do with Whitehall Ministers saying that they know best and absolutely nothing to do with the arguments that they put forward. It is against that background that we are opposing this clause root and branch.
Local authorities are not, in the words of the Minister, spending any old money that they can get their hands on. They are spending money that they have raised, not Whitehall money. They put their budgets before the electorates and they won their elections on that basis. The Minister's argument that they have freedom to spend what they like is incorrect. Each one has to raise the money in advance of the elections, with a budget. That is honest and democratic. It is what accountability is about.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 314.

Division No. 273]
[5.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buckley, George J.


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Beckett, Margaret
Cartwright, John


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clay, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blair, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Coleman, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin





Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cormack, Patrick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Cox, Tom
McAllion, John


Crowther, Stan
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McTaggart, Bob


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)


Fisher, Mark
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Hardy, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Randall, Stuart


Heffer, Eric S.
Redmond, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hinchliffe, David
Reid, Dr John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Richardson, Jo


Holland, Stuart
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, Jeff


Hoyle, Doug
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sedgemore, Brian


Illsley, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Ingram, Adam
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kennedy, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerry


Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ron
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livingstone, Ken
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Livsey, Richard
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)






Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wall, Pat
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert N.



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mrs. Llyn Golding and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry


Allason, Rupert
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Freeman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Christopher


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew





Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patnick, Irvine


Irvine, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Irving, Charles
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Janman, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Speller, Tony


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Tony
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stevens, Lewis


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Mellor, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Hal
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thorne, Neil


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tredinnick, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Page, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walters, Dennis






Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wheeler, John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the end of clause 114.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 57, line 29, at end insert 'and'.

No. 29, in page 57, line 30, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 31.

No. 30, in page 58, line 2, at end insert 'and'.

No. 31, in page 58, line 3, leave out from 'authorities' to end of line 4.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 117

QUALIFICATIONS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 65, line 19, at end insert—
`(ee) the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, and'.

No. 71, in page 65, line 22, leave out from 'section' to end of line 23.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 122

STATUTORY REFERENCES TO RATING

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 223, in page 68, line 18, at end insert—
`( )In subsection 4 of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, for the words from "the product of a rate of 2p in the pound" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words—

"(a) £4 per inhabitant of the area, except those mentioned in subsections (b) and (c) below;
(b) £8 per inhabitant in the metropolitan counties;
(c) such a sum, not less than £8, as the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe for Greater London; or
(d) such other higher amounts as the Secretary of State may by order provide.".'.

Under the constraints of the guillotine, it is the agreed intention to spend only a few minutes on amendment No. 223 before we move to the major item under the guillotine relating to the Scottish business.
Amendment No. 223 is a further probe in respect of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Effectively, that means discussing the issue of what we all understand to be the product of a penny rate. Local authorities can use the product of a penny rate for a variety of matters outside the normal remit of the legislation.
Obviously the product of a penny rate will have no significance once rateable values have disappeared and the poll tax is introduced. Therefore, amendment No. 223 refers to pounds per inhabitant of an area, whether they be in the metropolitan counties or the Greater London area. We really only want to press the Minister to discover whether the Government have given the matter any more

thought. In Committee the Government implied that they did not intend to abolish the concept completely, but obviously the product of the rate poundage would have no significance in future.
The issue is essentially important because local government uses section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 in three ways. First, it is used for job creation. I understand that about 75 per cent. of section 137 money is used for economic development issues of various kinds. I do not have the time to go into that in detail.
Secondly, section 137 money is used to fund and assist the voluntary sector. That includes grants to citizens' advice bureaux, law centres and other bodies not covered by mainstream funding. That includes voluntary groups working on issues not related directly to the responsibility of local authorities, for example, local voluntary groups opposing projects—although I have never heard of a local voluntary group "proposing" such projects—such as the siting of a new airport or nuclear power station. Those groups may want to put a case at a public inquiry or lead a campaign.
Airport construction and nuclear power generation are not local government issues. However, it is possible for local authorities to assist voluntary groups in work related to those issues which are of crucial importance to the local communities.
5.45 pm
Thirdly, section 137 money is used valuably where one tier of local authority funds a voluntary group related to another tier of local government. I refer to the examples given in Committee in which a district council would fund work relating to social services or education projects. A district council in the shire areas would not deal with those matters because that would be a county council function.
Section 137 money is not a great deal of money in terms of local government expenditure. However, it gives discretion and a degree of flexibility. It enables parts of local government to help and cope with the unexpected. It assists innovation and variety at local government level. I sincerely hope that the Government will not try to impose a complete block on those aspects of local government. I hope that the Government will consider or accept amendment No. 223—if they do accept it, I would probably fall through the floor—because it would meet the thrust of the arguments. Indeed, both sides of the Committee shared an understanding of the arguments on these points.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the Government will leave this matter to another place. If Ministers are to be believed about the other place, the other place will not be able to touch the Bill as it relates to money. Therefore, the other place will not be able to cope with the replacement of section 137 effectively. Therefore, we must deal with section 137 in this House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment and the arguments put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I remember the old days when we debated this matter in other Committees, on other Bills, in years past. The issue is the same. I have read what the Minister said in Committee.
The issue remains that local authorities should he given a greater amount of discretionary power within a small limit to raise the spend on things that they regard to he important locally. The hon. Member for Perry Barr


referred to citizens' advice bureaux. I visited Warwickshire a year or so ago. Warwickshire county was very keen to fund the increasingly important network of citizens' advice bureaux. It is the voluntary sector and voluntary services which most need the expansion of the tuppenny rate, as it is coloquially called.
The argument across the Floor of the House has concerned how much discretion local authorities should have. The Minister will know that some local authorities have reached their ceiling and are already committed. There are some good voluntary sector agencies whose requests have been turned down because there is no capacity to grant-fund them. The Minister will know also that the argument that extra money will be used only to fund lunatic and fringe activities is not supported by any evidence and that 67 per cent. of the total of section 137 money has been used for promoting economic development and employment. A substantial percentage was for legal, advisory and other welfare services.
All the indications are that one of the key areas that will need help if poll tax is to be enacted is that of money advice. With the increasing amount of debt that there is and the growing volume of difficulties into which people get, the services of the voluntary sector in particular will be needed in respect of consumer advice and financial counselling. Those are just examples of where discretionary powers will be necessary in local government.
The Minister has said that the Government will answer questions on that aspect when they know the result of the Widdicombe report. That report was promised early this year and is now overdue, and I should like to know when we shall be receiving it. If we had that information, I would be half happy. If we had that information plus a commitment either to accept this amendment or something similar, for one brief moment during the passage of this Bill there might even be some smiles on the Opposition Benches. I hope that the Minister will take this rare opportunity to find favour at a time when it seems that he and his colleagues on the Front Bench are increasingly unpopular and isolated, even among their own supporters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): This amendment is unnecessary. It is not necessary to pass an amendment either in this House or in another place because the present basis of section 137 limits can continue until the introduction of the community charge. Following upon that, clause 122 will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the reference in section 137 to the product of 2p in the pound to some other factor, as appropriate.
I have nothing to add to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend about the future of section 137 when we discussed the matter in Committee. He said then that the Government would announce their views in the light of the Widdicombe proposals and recommendations. I hope that it will not be too long before those announcements are made. When they are, we can discuss alongside section 137 powers the specific issue of local authority development activity and the other pertinent points raised during this short debate. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. William Cash: I would rather speak when my hon. Friend has finished.

Mr. Chope: In that case, it might be better if I conclude my remarks at this point and ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Cash: This amendment deals with a clause in the Bill that refers to statutory references to rating. It raises an important question relating to my own constituency of Stafford, with particular reference to an area named Knighton, which is governed by an Act of Parliament passed in 1660, when Charles II was on the throne.
The significance of that provision, in referring the application of section 137 in the context of clause 122, is this. Under the terms of the 1660 Act, residents of Knighton are not liable to rates, taxes, assessments or charges, whether passed by Acts of Parliament or otherwise. Furthermore, that provision was granted in good faith in 1660, in recognition of services rendered by the local inhabitants to Charles II.
It so happens that in 1927 Gnosall rural district council itself continued that exemption under the then Rating and Valuation Act 1925. Furthermore, and with specific reference to the General Rate Act 1967, to which reference is made in the statute in question, section 117 further continues the exemption for those constituents of mine. They comprise 31 occupiers, a pub, and a smithy. The pub is known as the Haberdasher's Arms. There is also a factory, together with——

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that name?

Mr. Cash: The pub is known as the Haberdasher's Arms, in the parish of Knighton.

Mr. Foulkes: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman —I must make a visit there.

Mr. Cash: Since 1660, its inhabitants have been under no obligation to pay rates. I appreciate that we are under the guillotine, so I shall bring my remarks to a swift conclusion. It would be most unfortunate if the Henry VIII clause, normally used to revoke, amend or repeal an Act, should be used in this instance to remove an exemption that was granted in such express terms in 1660. I look to the Minister to continue the exemption for my constituents on the grounds that it was made in good faith and has been continued on numerous subsequent occasions. I ask my hon. Friend, when he replies, to give the assurance that I seek.

Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, we accept the Minister's reply as far as it goes, but I recommend that all right hon. and hon. Members find time to read amendment No. 237, which relates to the speech that we have just heard and to the bunch of free-loaders in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who do not pay any rates. How do they benefit from the product of the tuppenny rate anyway, under section 137, if they are not paying rates? There is a point to be made here about accountability and democracy, but I shall not make it now —otherwise I shall have my hon. Friends from Scotland down on me like a ton of bricks. I take it as being implicit in the Minister's reply that the same amount of money will be available under some equivalent form of procedure


when the poll tax is introduced as currently exists under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That being the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123

RATE SUPPORT GRANT: ABOLITION

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 68, line 41, leave out 'as a simple contract debt'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 127

RATES LEVIED FOR CERTAIN YEARS

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 70, line 15, after second 'by', insert
'or determined in accordance with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 79, 80, 75, 91 to 95, 95A, 96, 97, 76 and 77.

Mr. Lang: Most of the amendments in this group relate to registration issues, and, like the other Scottish amendments to the Bill, they fall into three broad categories. Some bring provisions in the Scottish Act into line with the equivalent provisions for England and Wales; some make minor and technical changes to the 1987 Act; and a few introduce new provisions.
Of the amendments in this group, two fall into the first category; that is, they bring the Scottish provisions into line with the equivalent English provisions. Amendment No. 95A gives registration officers power to make inquiries of individuals who are, have been or are about to be resident in their area.

6 pm

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister talked about bringing the Scottish provision into line with the English provision. Can he explain why he is still persisting with the requirement to include the date of birth in registration? A number of people have objected to it recently, for a variety of reasons, and I can find no explanation for its inclusion. Why is the date of birth needed in Scotland but not in England? This is causing considerable offence, not least to my mother.

Mr. Lang: I am sorry about the circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's mother. However, I think that if I were to argue that all the Scottish provisions should shadow the English provisions exactly, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be the first to complain.
The provision about dates of birth was pressed on the Government by local government practitioners in Scotland to enable them the better to identify——

Mr. Douglas: Name one.

Mr. Lang: I can name one: the Rating and Valuation Association pressed it on the Government very strongly. It was thought to be a better way of identifying people, and after considering the matter the Government decided to agree.

Mr. Foulkes: Why is that greater means of identification necessary in Scotland, but not in England? Are there more people with the same name in Scotland? I

would have thought that it might be more important to apply the provision in Wales, in view of all the EvanJoneses and others of the same name. So far, the Minister has failed to explain that.

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my responsibilities in the context of the amendments relate to the Scottish provisions. I can only assume that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent English constituencies and who are Ministers at the Department of the Environment have not come under the same pressure from local government practitioners.
Amendment No. 95A gives registration officers power to make inquiries of individuals who are, have been or are about to be resident in their area. At present, the basic source of information for registration officers is the canvass of responsible persons. It is clear, however, that at a certain stage in the canvass process, registration officers may wish to seek information direct from individuals—for example, those who claim to be students or to be exempt —and the amendment gives them power to do so. As the power will relate to identifiable individuals, it will not supplant the general canvass process but will be a useful supplement to it. A similar power is contained in paragraph 10 of schedule 2 as respects England and Wales.
Amendment No. 96 also falls—or at least partly falls —into this category. Among the amendments it makes to section 20 of the 1987 Act is an amendment to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe other persons who will he entitled to inspect the register. This power will be used to allow auditors to inspect the register in line with the equivalent provision for England and Wales. Amendment No. 96 also amends the part of section 20 which requires regional and islands councils to sell copies of the public part of the register.
A number of interests have objected to this requirement and have suggested that, if it is retained, provision should be made to allow individuals to request the removal of their name. Amendment No. 96 therefore replaces the relevant part of section 20 with a provision empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations providing whether, and on what terms. the public part of the register may be sold. It brings section 20 into line with the corresponding provision for England and Wales in paragraph 18 of schedule 2 to the Bill.
Three of the amendments in the group introduce what are effectively new provisions. Amendment No. 91 amends section 13 of the 1987 Act to make it clear that the register should not be divided into three parts, relating to the personal, standard and collective community charges respectively. If the register were organised in this way it would, at least arguably, feed through into the public part of the register and would thus completely negate our intention that it should not be possible to identify second homes from the register. A separate part would also make it easier to identify women's refuges, undermining the anonymity that we intend to achieve for them.
Amendment No. 93 amends section 15 of the 1987 Act to overcome difficulties which might otherwise arise in the case of deaths. As that section stands, registration officers are required to notify persons whose register entry is changed or deleted using a form prescribed for that purpose. The form addresses the registered person in the second person singular, and it would clearly he unfortunate if such forms were sent out bearing the names


of people who have died. Amendment No. 93 therefore amends section 15 to provide that in such circumstances the notification should be sent to the deceased's executors.
The last amendment in this category is amendment No. 95. It inserts into section 18 of the 1987 Act a new subsection, which provides that when a person dies his executors must notify the registration officer of the date of the death within one month. This will help to ensure that the register is kept up to date.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Minister estimate how many registration forms have been sent out to deceased people in Scotland over the past month, naming them as responsible people?

Mr. Lang: No; I am sorry. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the registration process has just started. Although in some regions it is quite well advanced and is proceeding smoothly, in others some of the information is not yet available.
Amendment No. 95 is unlikely to impose any additional burden on executors, as they will no doubt wish in any case to seek confirmation that there is no outstanding liability for the community charge in respect of the deceased.

Mr. Douglas: Do the Government intend to introduce any penalties for failure to inform the registration officer that a person is deceased?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 1987 Act already makes provision for a civil penalty of £50 in the first instance and £200 in the second.
The other amendments in the group are all essentially minor and technical, and raise no issues of substance.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that we have a truncated debate, and I do not wish to detain any hon. Member who wishes to take part, but the Government have tabled a plethora of amendments. Surely it is an insult to the House to guillotine the debate. Does the Minister intend to say anything about Government amendment No. 84 which introduces substantial changes to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite understood. We are discussing the group of amendments being taken with Government amendment No. 78. Government amendment No. 84 will come later, if there is time. It cannot be discussed with this group of amendments.

Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Substantial changes are being made under a guillotine. I shall respect your ruling. However, the thrust of the amendments relates not to the 1987 Act but to the 1973 Act. Is the Minister not going to say anything in defence of his amendment?

Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has made a very good point. This is a very short debate to cover many Government amendments that are both technical and important. I think that it would have been more sensible if the Minister had taken some time at least to say a word or two about the other amendments—as we

must finish the debate by 7.30 pm—or even for the amendments all to have been grouped together, so that we could have talked about all of them. Some of the others are also important, but there will be no time to debate them all.
I intend to keep my remarks relatively brief, because I am well aware of the shortness of time, and we want to get through as much as possible. I do not know about the Minister, but I spent considerable time during the past weeks canvassing in my constituency. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) never does that, but I do. I have found, on doorstep after doorstep, people who voted Tory even as late as June last year saying, "I shall never vote for that woman again." The major cause of that is, of course, the poll tax. Our canvass returns in Cathcart show Labour support 6 per cent. higher than it was in June last year, when the majority was increased from 4,000 to 11,000. That is why the Government are doing so badly. I say to English Conservative Members loud and clear: if they want to experience the same thing as their Scottish colleagues did in June last year, let them continue to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the Galloway Gazette and Stranraer-News?

Mr. Maxton: I should be delighted to read it, if my hon. Friend lets me have a copy.
The Minister and I both spoke at the rating and valuation conference in Dunblane last Friday. He did not impress the experts, the people who must put the system into practice, by arriving at 11.30, speaking for 20 minutes and leaving to do a press conference. He did not answer a single question that the experts wanted to ask. Those experts said loud and clear to me that they will keep all their valuation rolls for domestic properties because their view is that the tax will collapse in a matter of years and the Government will have to return to the rating system.

Mr. Salmond: Did any one of those experts suggest to the hon. Gentleman in those discussions that the information on the date of birth was necessary for the community charge register?

Mr. Maxton: None of them did. Equally, every single one was opposed to the concept of a non-payment campaign.
One thing which the Minister said, which is important in regard to the amendments, was:
It is our clear intention that no change made to the Bill should prejudice the timetable for the introduction of the new system in Scotland.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the press later, he said:
Our legislation is through. It would not upset the timetable for Scotland. The driving force is to abolish the discredited and grossly unfair rating system and we are determined to bring early relief to domestic ratepayers in Scotland. That is what the change is all about.
That is a major shift in Scottish Office thinking. Until now, the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that if there are any major changes in the English legislation, inevitably it will mean the holding back or withdrawal and repeal of the Scottish legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. That is what the Secretary of State has said time and again.

Mr. Lang: To help the hon. Gentleman along, the question was not about change; it was about delay.

Mr. Maxton: That is not what the Minister is quoted as saying. He said:
It is our clear intention that no change made to the Bill should prejudice the timetable".
That is astonishing. Are they saying that if the Bill is defeated on Third Reading tonight—it may be a remote possibility, but it is not impossible—the Scottish Act will go ahead? If the other place amends the Bill, as the House came close to doing on Monday last week, will the Government say that they will still press ahead with the Scottish legislation, despite such a major change in the English Bill? If so, that is a direct contradiction and a major shift in the view of the Scottish Office and its Ministers.
The amendments are about registration. As the registration process is taking place in Scotland, chaos is developing. Repressive measures are having to be used —I say that advisedly—by registration officers to try to get the information. Jack Woods, the registration officer for Strathclyde, made it clear that he had to use postcards giving people three days to return the information because, if he did not, it would have been impossible to obtain the information in time to complete the register by October this year. He is having to use means which, if legal, are not strictly within the spirit of how the process should be carried out.
The amendments try to tighten up further the registration procedure, to try to make sure, if at all possible, that nobody dodges the tax.

Mr. Bill Walker: indicated assent.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman nods. Every time that is done, the expense increases and the return decreases because every time one pushes up the expense of registration one gets a smaller return.
Many people in Strathclyde are returning their forms, not just because we are asking them to and saying that that is what they should do. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the date of birth. Many people ask why on earth they should give that information and why they should provide information that is not required under the English Bill. What absolute guarantee can the Minister give that the information of the date of birth will be kept secret and not be made available to a much wider public? We must deal with the registration procedure.
The amendments are bizarre and threatening. For example, amendment No. 95 deals with what happens when someone dies. That is right. It is amazing that when we went through the Committee on the Scottish Bill Ministers forgot that people died. Ministers did not remember that and did nothing about it.

Mr. Lang: Did the hon. Gentleman raise the matter?

Mr. Maxton: It was not my responsibility to ensure that the Bill was correct. It was the hon. Gentleman's responsibility. [NON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, I take that back. Of course, it was not the Minister's direct responsibility; it was the responsibility of one Michael Ancram, who pushed the Bill through. We all know what happened to him.
It is important to know whether there will be penalties if the executor does not inform the registration officer that someone has died. In my constituency, for example. a husband who has been unemployed for the past 20 years may die. The couple may have no property except the contents of the House. An executor will not be appointed. The widow is left with the responsibility to ensure that arrangements are made—an executor will not do it. It is she who has to arrange the funeral and go through all the procedures; she will be the executor in fact, if not in law. Will she have to return the forms and make sure that she sends back the information within a month? If she does not, will she suffer a £50 fine, on top of all the other things that she is suffering? That would be absurd.
Through the amendments, the Government are seeking further information. It is not clear from the amendments whether this is the case, but the Minister said at Dunblane that under the new system DHSS payments are now subject to court orders and local authorities will be able to seek deductions from DHSS payments. The Minister also said that the DHSS will be able to provide information to registration officers. If someone seeks income support, he will be given a form to claim a rebate on his poll tax, but he will be informed that if he does not send in the form the DHSS will inform the registration officer accordingly. That is a breach of the commitment given by Michael Ancram in the Committee on the Scottish Bill, that DHSS records would not be available for the registration process. He said that time and again in Committee. We have yet another breach of the rules as Ministers realise that they are having more problems with the tax and that they are in difficulties.
Visiting service men are now to be exempt. I do not know what that will mean in Argyll. I do not know how much American service men living in Dunoon pay in rates on houses that they rent or own. If they rent or own their houses, presumably they pay rates. Now they are to be exempt. I assume that if the service man is married to a Scots girl she will be exempt too. As I understand it, a spouse will be exempt as well. That makes some sense, but there is something obscence about well-paid American service men and well-paid diplomats living in Scotland —I do not know whether the consuls are in the same position—being exempt from the poll tax when the Government intend to impose the tax upon the mildly mentally handicapped, the severely physically handicapped, the old, the unemployed, the ill and the sick.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my hon. Friend recall the notorious Mr. Michael Ancram seeking to rebut the suggestion that in reality the community charge would be a poll tax by arguing that those not entitled to vote would not have to pay tax? We now see the Government seeking to exempt a large group of foreigners who are not able to vote but should have to pay the tax.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are making nonsense of the argument that the tax is about ensuring that anyone who makes use of local services should pay something towards them. An American service man living in Dunoon will make use of local services, perhaps the full range of such services. However, he will not have to pay the poll tax. The Government are in a considerable mess.
I shall quote what the Secretary of State for the Environment said about the unified business rate on Thursday of last week. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised the matter in the same debate. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Scotland will move towards a unified business rate at the English rate poundage after rateable values have been harmonised. No changes to the Bill are proposed, because it is unclear how fast harmonisation can proceed."—[Official Report, 21 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 1026.]
As I understand it, we do not have any legislation for the introduction of a uniform business rate in Scotland. Perhaps some of the technical amendments before us will make the necessary legislative provision. I should think that separate legislation will be required. Is the Secretary of State for the Environment telling us something that we in Scotland do not know, or is he just plain ignorant?

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend is making a valuable point, but what the Secretary of State said to me was much more specific:
The idea is that the rateable value bases of the two countries should be brought entirely in line as soon as possible so that there is no distortion between arrangements in England and Scotland."—[Official Report, 21 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 1025.]

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend reinforces my argument. I do not think that the Scottish Office is aware of the problem. If it is, it is clearly abrogating its responsibility to deal with Scottish legislation and Scottish local government. It seems that it is happy to hand over its responsibilities to the Department of the Environment.

Mr. John Butterfill: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman in a small way. There may be other changes that will require legislation but that will not be necessary when it comes to valuation practice. The hon. Gentleman may not realise that the Inland Revenue has different practices for the decapitalisation rate for different types of hereditament. It is that area in which harmonisation is required, where valuation opinion is involved. That would be likely to benefit Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: Now that the hon. Gentleman has resumed his place, I shall inform him of his ignorance. Valuations in Scotland are not carried out by the Inland Revenue. Separate legislation would be required to make properties in Scotland liable to valuation by the Inland Revenue. We need to know from the Minister exactly what is going on.
The poll tax is obscene and it is not wanted in Scotland. The time has come for the Government to withdraw their proposals, even for their own political good. If they fail to withdraw the legislation that will apply in Scotland, there will be no Conservative Members representing seats in Scotland after the next general election.

Mr. Bill Walker: The comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about the anomalies in the valuations of non-domestic properties in Scotland are interesting and astonishing. He must know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have introduced private Members' Bills to eradicate anomalies between the Scottish and English valuation systems. Caravans and reed beds, for example, may ring some bells for the hon. Gentleman. The bringing into line of the two rating and

valuation systems is long overdue. The distortions have worked substantially to Scotland's disadvantage, and that is something we should never forget.
The hon. Member for Cathcart talked about visiting service men and I expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take up his remarks. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was referring to visiting service men who take up rented accommodation. The owners of such properties will have to register them under the legislation. That applies also to second homes, for example. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that visiting service men should not broaden our elections. I hope also that he will agree that service men should make their contribution, as they have in the past. Military bases have had their own system for ensuring that that happens.
The hon. Member for Cathcart told us that he has been canvassing in his constituency. It will come as no surprise to him that he is not the only one who has chosen to go out knocking on doors. He is not the only one who has been canvassing.

Mr. Foulkes: That explains why the hon. Gentleman is wearing dark glasses.

Mr. Maxton: What happened?

Mr. Walker: I happened to suffer some injuries to my eyes over the weekend. I find that the more sensitive hon. Members are sympathetic to anyone with such problems. The less sympathetic and understanding usually find it amusing when someone suffers such injuries. I leave Labour Members to decide which cap fits them.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has told us that he has done some canvassing. As I have said, I have been canvassing in my constituency. Over the weekend, I spoke to Health Service managers in Edinburgh and to the Association of School Meals Organisers at its annual conference on Saturday. I went through the community charge proposals in some detail with both bodies because I knew that they were interested in them. The hon. Member for Cathcart will be surprised to hear that in the main they were responsive to the Government's position and attitude. Indeed, they were constructively helpful and responsive. The gentleman who replied to my speech and thanked me at the conference of the Association of School Meals Organisers said that he was one of the converts. I found that interesting.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has said that his constituents are saying that they will never again vote for the Conservative party. I did not expect to be received favourably at the association's conference. Indeed, I expected to have to defend the Government's policy on these matters, including the amendments that we are discussing. I was pleasantly surprised when there was a warm response and a positive reaction to what I had to say in going into detail on the community charge. It is the misinformation about the Bill that is causing the public to be concerned. When one deals with facts, one should present them as they are.
This morning, I received a letter from some individuals who said that they had never voted Conservative, but, having had the opportunity to hear me speak and to study in detail the booklet that the Government sent out, they now believe that the Conservative party is the only party bringing forward sensible proposals in respect of local


government finance. That is why the amendments, particularly those in respect of registration and other matters that require tightening up, are before the House.
Of course, there were problems with deceased individuals being notified. Whoever the dependants may be, they have other sensitive matters to deal with. As everyone knows, a bereaved person has many difficult and sensitive matters to deal with. In most instances bereaved people are assisted by relatives and others. It normally falls to someone else to carry out such activities. That will become the norm in respect of many things that must be done. We all know that, at some time or other, our parents will be deceased, and we must deal with the matters that must be dealt with. It is nonsense to suggest that, somehow, there is something different about this matter.
I welcome the amendments. They will help to tidy the Bill and will make it easier for people such as myself, who have been out positively canvassing the benefits, also to explain what will happen.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I, too, regret that we are faced with all these amendments and, once again, are not allowed sufficient time properly to debate them. Some amendments, such as No. 95A, refer to obtaining information. As we know, preparation for the poll tax has been under way in Scotland for some time. Forms are dropping through people's doors throughout the country. I should have thought that the alarm and, indeed, the chaos that seem to be threatening would be a warning to England and Wales.
What I could most usefully do is to read a letter that I recently received. It is one of many such letters to registration offices from various people in my constituency. One gentleman states:
Firstly I have never signed to promise money without knowing the figure involved. I appreciate that you cannot know the exact figure but an estimate to the nearest £20 would suffice.
That gentleman strongly objects to putting his signature to a hit of paper, promising money when he does not know how much will be involved. He went on:
Secondly, although I may be a responsible person under the terms of the the Act, one can only be responsible for oneself. I cannot be responsible for any information regarding names and dates of birth of any additional occupants of the above address.
An awful lot of people are objecting on such grounds. That gentleman objects also on the ground of fairness. As hon. Members will probably realise, that constituent lives on an island. He does not see why he should pay the same as a resident in a town,
when I have neither street lighting nor a footpath in front of my house, have no access to recreation and leisure facilities and suffer the obvious penalties of living on an island.
[Interruption.] He was not forced to live on that island —he was born and brought up there. His parents before him and his grandparents before them lived there. I shall never accept the argument that, if one does not want to take on the penalties of living on an island, one should get out or not go there in the first place.
It was interesting to see the registration form that was delivered to my house at the weekend. At the top, it states:
A responsible person can be required to provide information, but being a responsible person does not make that person liable to pay a community charge on behalf of any other person.

That is misleading. Often, those who are designated as responsible are husbands or wives. Most often, it is the husband, because, in the past, they have been the ratepayers. The form does not make it clear that a husband could be responsible for his wife's poll tax if she is not an earner. Registration officers must examine and solve that problem.
Going back to amendment No. 95A relating to obtaining information, an article on the fairness of the poll tax in this week's editon of The Observer was particularly instructive. It stated that, when canvassers tried to obtain information from council estates, they were sent packing. In fact, the only welcoming ports of call for poll tax canvassers were those that had BMWs in their drives or, perhaps, had double-glazed windows.
I hope that the Minister will examine, albeit briefly, amendment No. 81, which refers to visiting forces. It is causing some concern, particularly to my council in Argyll and Bute. I hope that he will be able to tell us what the consequences will be for visiting forces and their wives. Clause 128 refers to people who have relevant associations with members of visiting forces. Who are such persons? Does it mean that the wives of men in visiting forces are not to pay the poll tax? If so, all the girls in Dunoon may rush off to marry United States naval chaps.

Mr. Home Robertson: Surely they have better taste.

Mrs. Michie: Many of them have married United States naval men.
What will happen if a United States naval officer is posted back to the United States and his wife and children must stay in Dunoon? Will they continue not to pay the poll tax? I am not clear about the consequences, and I shall be glad if the Minister will say a word on the matter.
Unfortunately, nothing in the amendments does anything to ease the additional burden that has been heaped on church and crofting communities. Because of the inequity of the poll tax, the Government have lost the argument. That inequity will never be forgotten—certainly in Scotland.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the amendments, just as the House should welcome them. They refine and improve the legislation. Anything that does that to any measure going through the House of Commons should be welcomed in the interests of the people in this country. I advise the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the explanatory notes on the form that I received clearly show what the figure will be —£210. I am surprised that her local authority has not given her constituent the same valuable information. Some Opposition Members have been shouting about £300 and £400 in my part of the world. That shows just how they have gone out of their way to mislead the population about the community charge. As has been said, it is most unfair and unreasonable of Members of Parliament, and candidates in the election, to cause alarm and despondency by quoting figures which are way out of proportion to what they will be in a year's time.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Name one example.

Sir Hector Monro: I have just given the hon. Lady the average figure in Dumfries and Galloway, as quoted by the regional council and the local government information leaflet published last week. That was £210 for Dumfries


and Galloway and for the districts therein. That is as accurate as can be ascertained at present. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady laughs about that, she had better stick to her own district and not interfere with other people's.
I believe that the wishful thinking of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that this important Bill might be in jeopardy at Third Reading, is totally without any foundation. He will discover that shortly. If that is so, then the legislation will proceed in any event in Scotland. I am glad that the regional authorities are making such important steps towards collecting the information as required by the Act, and proceeding with all pace to carry out the procedure satisfactorily. I wonder what the policies of the various parties opposite—including the Scottish National party, the Labour party and every Tom, Dick and Harry—are to the implementation of the community charge. Some hon. Members say, "Take illegal action"; others say, "Take legal action."
The general public is thoroughly muddled by the deliberate attempt by Opposition Members to make life as difficult as possible for the people of Scotland, when they should be assisting them to introduce a scheme that is much fairer to all the people in Scotland. They certainly believe that in Scotland.
It is fascinating that, when I have been knocking on doors, in which I suspect I have been more effective than the hon. Member for Cathcart, I have found a very different response. Hon. Members opposite also fail to explain during their tours of their constituencies the very effective rebate system which is so important to the community charge. Once people understand that rebates operate on a sliding scale, going up to 80 per cent., and perhaps beyond for those on very low incomes, they will begin to realise that the rebate system is a valuable and important one

Mr. Maxton: Second to the anger that people are expressing about the poll tax is the large number of people who are bitter, bitter, bitter about losing their housing benefit and social security payments as a result of this Government's legislation.

Sir Hector Monro: They also say how delighted they are that the Government have increased nurses' salaries so substantially. If the hon. Member for Cathcart wishes to move away from the Bill, he can have that answer.
The amendmends tabled by the Government are certainly advantageous. It is right that the Minister should take the opportunity to put them in this Bill, so that they can be included in the work going ahead on the community charge in Scotland. I have every intention of supporting the Government tonight.

Mr. Salmond: I hope that the four English Conservative Back Benchers who have stayed to listen to this debate, and who, perhaps, are "beginning to understand" the full implications of this legislation, will find the Scottish debate instructive.
We have reached a fine pitch in the poll tax debate as it applies to Scotland—a fine pitch of argument and also a fine pitch of absurdity, which is reflected in some of the amendments that the Government are proposing.
Amendment No. 92, for example, substitutes "registered person" for the phrase
person whose name is entered in the register".

In amendment No. 97, "registered person" is defined as someone
who is registered in the register".
That was an amendment crying out to be tabled!
The Minister has already given us an insight into the only two certainties of life, which are death and taxes. Amendment No. 95 contains what must be the Government's major and generous concession in the Scottish legislation. The Minister releases dead people from the responsibility of telling the registration officer that they have died. That responsibility is placed on the executors. If the Minister is concerned about the feelings of the relatives of the deceased, will he say how many deceased people have received, as responsible people, a registration form, because of the use of the electoral roll? If the Minister is so concerned with the feelings of relatives, perhaps he will try to estimate how many such forms have been distributed and what the Government propose to do about it.
6.45 pm
There are a number of other serious matters in these amendments. Amendment No. 95A, for example, extends the list of people to whom the registration officer can elicit information to anyone
whom he reasonably believes is, has been or is about to be resident in the registration area.
How can a registration officer know who is "about to be" registered in his area? The only source of information is other registration officers in Scotland, who have supplied him with the names of people who are leaving their registration areas. We have to square that with the question on page 10 of this multi-coloured brochure "You and the Community Charge" from the "Ministry of Truth":
Will it be a national register?
The answer was
"No."
There will not be a national register for the poll tax only —in the same way as there was not a national police force during the miners' strike. There will certainly be shared information and the exchange of information between registration officers. That is clearly implied within the amendments.
In amendment No. 96, we see another breach of civil liberties in the legislation. That extends the list of people who can seek information from the register:
any such other person as may be prescribed shall be entitled to inspect the register to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed".
In other words, an extension of those who are allowed to inspect the full poll tax register.
The original legislation detailed that the assessor and the electoral registration officer would have that entitlement. This amendment is a major extension of those who are going to be allowed to look at the full register. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked the Minister why date of birth information was required in the Scottish legislation. We have the answer in this amendment. It is that, within a fairly short period, the poll tax number, including the date of birth information, will be the "passport", without which a member of the public will not receive, or be able to receive, access to any entitlement of right of any state service. The lie to the Government's position on the matter is given in that amendment, with the extension of those who can look at the full poll tax register.
We are debating the Scottish amendments at the fag end of the English legislation. As several hon. Members have said, it will mean that many important amendments receive no discussion at all this evening. I doubt very seriously whether the 38 officers and gentlemen who revolted last Monday night are going to revolt on these Scottish amendments. Of those 38 hon. Members, no fewer than 30 voted for the Scottish poll tax in the last Parliament. Indeed, two other hon. Members were not in the Parliament. These amendments will not be decided by Scottish Members, 63 of whom are now opposed to the poll tax. These amendments will be decided by the English Members who are not even present in this Chamber to hear the arguments. The revolt of the officers and gentlemen makes it clear that English Members of Parliament vote blind on Scottish legislation. We are seeing yet another example of that this evening.
The anger in Scotland, I should tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), is expressed not just in terms of opposition to the poll tax but takes in no less than 71 per cent. of the supporters of the Labour party who wish to go further. According to an opinion poll last month, 71 per cent. wanted a campaign of non-payment, in line with 78 per cent. of the supporters of my party, a majority of the supporters of the Democrats and even 20 per cent. of the supporters of the Conservative party. They all wanted a campaign of non-payment.

Mr. Bill Walker: If the Scottish National party is so keen on a campaign of non-payment, why is Angus district council assuming a policy that payment and registration should be carried out? Will the hon. Gentleman also say why it is necessary for Scottish National party activists to send letters to the local papers in my constituency asking questions that were never asked of me at public meetings and giving answers that I have not given? The answer is that they have to rely on distortions about the facts, on misinformation and downright lies. That is how desperate they are.

Mr. Salmond: Many things are said about the hon. Gentleman. My view is that most are understatements rather than overstatements. The position of the Scottish National party is that a mass campaign of non-payment is necessary and justified given the circumstances in which the Scottish legislation was passed.

Mr. Maxton: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not congratulated the Government on the changes that they have introduced to allow direct access to DHSS payments by the courts and finance officers. That was requested of the Government by Grampian regional council, of which the SNP is part of the ruling group which voted for the proposal.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman was following closely—he should have been, as he attended some Committee meetings at which I explained at some length the SNP proposal for the mass campaign of non-payment —he will know that it is precisely those who are in a position to pay, those who can pay but who will not pay, whom we are trying to recruit for a mass campaign of non-payment. They will stand shoulder to shoulder with many people in Scotland who cannot and will not pay. That is the point behind the mass campaign of non-payment.
In conclusion, when English Conservative Members do not even attend Scottish debates, vote blind on Scottish legislation and ram issues such as the poll tax down the throats of the Scottish people against the wishes of the vast majority of Scottish Members, it is little wonder that there is the level of resentment and anger in Scotland that will sustain a mass campaign of non-payment. There can be no more eloquent testimony to the need for a Scottish parliament than the circumstances and the decision of this evening's vote.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) might reflect that many of the Labour Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill were from Scotland. We commented on that at the time. Indeed, we welcomed the interest that they were taking in what is predominantly an English Bill, which affects Scotland only peripherally. It is a little disappointing that only one of the Scottish Labour Members who served on the Standing Committee is participating in this debate. Perhaps that reflects the interest of Scottish Labour Members in the legislation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) chastised me when I intervened to say that I am ignorant of Scottish affairs. I assumed that valuations in Scotland were carried out by the Inland Revenue, whereas, as he correctly pointed out, they are carried out by the local government valuers. However, the principle of what I was saying—that valuation practice does not require legislation—is absolutely correct. The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect that properties that are valued according to the contractors' test, such as extractive industries and large-scale petrochemical industries—many of which are important to Scottish industry—operate at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in England, which have a decapitalisation rate that is a good deal more favourable.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he thinks that that is an anomaly which should be corrected and that he is considering how best it should be corrected. He has suggested that we might have an automatic mechanism for adjusting the decapitalisation rate which might require an amendment. I would have thought that that should be welcomed by Opposition Members. It is something of which the hon. Member for Cathcart would have been aware if he had taken the trouble to read the Hansard of the Committee proceedings.

Mrs. Fyfe: The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is absent is simple. He is serving on a Committee. I do not know the reason for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), but, knowing his strong commitment to getting a lot done in this place, I can only assume that it is a good reason. It was unreasonable of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) to assume that there is an inadequate reason for their absence.
I shall raise two points briefly, as other hon. Members wish to speak. We heard earlier from the Minister that people in Scotland are required to give their date of birth to the poll tax canvasser because the Government received representations on that in Scotland. When pressed on that point, we were told that the local government body that called for that was the Rating and Valuation Association. The people of Scotland will be amazed to learn that, in


spite of their strength of feeling and their vehement opposition to the measure requiring their birth date, they are getting it because of the wishes of a body of which the vast majority have probably never heard. I should add that the Rating and Valuation Association has conducted itself in a most responsible fashion by explaining clearly to people all along what the legislation is about and why it should not be brought into force. It is incredible—it will certainly be noticed with anger in Scotland—that that is the best reason that the Government can produce for enforcing the date of birth requirement on the Scottish population.
The main reason why I wish to speak is that only this weekend I discovered that in my constituency a poll tax canvasser had knocked on the door of a mentally handicapped person on Friday night. That man has lived all his life until recently in institutions and has managed to live alone and independently only recently, in a small flat in my constituency. He can do so only with the support of local social workers who give him advice on his budget. He lives in a block of flats in which other people are similarly placed. Many cannot read or write with any fluency, yet the poll tax canvasser went round on Friday night, handed over the poll tax form and said that she would be back on Monday. When the man, who was alert enough to have been taking in information from the television, said that he knew that he had 21 days in which to return the form, he got the reply that he had better return the poll tax form on Monday or he would be liable to be fined.
I should add that that man is able to work at a relatively undemanding job, with low pay of about £67 per week. He is on housing benefit, which is about to be cut heavily. At the moment it is uncertain what housing benefit he will end up with. However, it seems pretty certain that he will be liable to pay the full poll tax, considering that last week we learned that a single man with a take-home pay as low as £53 per week would be liable to pay the poll tax.
Since this sort of thing is happening in Strathclyde, we must assume that it could be happening elsewhere in Scotland right now and that there are dangers of its happening throughout England and Wales when registration begins there. As the Secretary of State has evidently not yet taken any steps to ensure that poll tax canvassing is carried out with some sensitivity, is it not reasonable to say that before people go around knocking on doors, they should at least find out in advance where people such as I have described are living, so that they can be approached far more sensitively than has been described? What training does the Minister propose shall be given to poll tax canvassers? What information will he ensure that they are given? People are being misinformed about their rights in the most aggressive manner. It is important that the Minister takes up this issue without any further delay.

7 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I support the amendments.
It is important to deal with the allegation made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the Government have changed their position. He did not produce any exact quotations of my right hon. and learned

Friend the Secretary of State to back up that allegation. As I understand it, the Government's position has been clear and unchanged throughout. It has been that, obviously, there might need to be detailed changes in this Bill to apply to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 because of changes that have been agreed to the legislation south of the border, but that that would not change the timetable. The Government have always made it clear that detailed changes such as the amendments entail might have to be introduced without changing the timetable.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) once again used the opportunity to tell the House about the SNP's great campaign of non-payment.

Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) ducked completely the question whether Angus district council, which is run by the SNP now but will not be after 5 May, would co-operate with Tayside region in the registration process?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only did the hon. Gentleman duck that, but he ducked the question from the hon. Member for Cathcart about Grampion region, and whether he and his few hon. Friends would be the first over the barricades.

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for an answer to whether I shall pay my poll tax, it is that I shall not pay it.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that SNP Members of this Parliament will under no circumstances pay the community charge, so they will subject themselves to the inevitable penalties of the law. We shall see in due course. In the past, that question has been ducked by SNP leaders.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised an important point which my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on if he is successful in catching your eye at the end of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have found a continuing confusion about the difference between the responsibility for filling in the form and the responsibility for paying the community charge. All hon. Members know what the position is, because we have been following the legislation. but it is important that people know what their joint and several liability is in relation to their spouse, and that their liability does not extend to other members of the household. A man came to my surgery, critical of the community charge, but when I explained that he did not have to pay for all his teenage children over 18, he was immediately transformed into a supporter. He left with the words, "That will get them out of the house a bit quicker."
The hon. Lady also said that people did not know what their community charge would be. Obviously, it is not known what the precise community charge will be, but I would have thought that we do know what it will be within £20, as she asked. The figure for Eastwood on the latest calculations is £264.
A disinformation campaign is continuing in significant parts of Scotland, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not underestimate it. People who are not necessarily heavily involved and do not necessarily have


sources of advice easily available are particularly vulnerable to the disinformation which is being supported implicitly and explicitly by some hon. Members.

Mr. Foulkes: I never thought that I would find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), but he is absolutely right: there is a disinformation campaign, but it is coming from new St. Andrew's House. What is more, it is being carried out at the expense of taxpayers, and the Comptroller and Auditor General might do well to look into that.
I have not spoken in many of these debates——

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Why not?

Mr. Foulkes: I have been happy to sit and listen to my hon. Friends make powerful and persuasive arguments against all aspects of the Bill. But I am glad to have an opportunity to speak now, because last Thursday I was speaking at a public meeting in Cumnock town hall, where every seat was taken. It was a packed meeting, the like of which I have not seen since the miners' strike. Almost unanimously, those present wanted us to oppose and obstruct the process of registration by every legal means. They objected strongly to, and rejected SNP suggestions of, non-payment. In particular, one person remembered being pushed into a rent strike by SNP personnel and that the people who had been pushing had paid their rents, leaving the rest high and dry.

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. At the meeting, the people wondered whether, if they followed the advice of the nationalists, they would again be left high and dry, or whether the SNP would bail them out in their hour of need.

Mr. Salmond: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the System Three poll showed that 71 per cent. of Labour voters wanted such a campaign? The real division on this issue is not between the Labour party and the SNP, but between the Labour leadership and Labour supporters.

Mr. Foulkes: It is about time that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues started attacking the real enemy, the Tories, instead of spending hour upon hour attacking the Labour party. I was saying that the SNP was leading people down a path when it knows that it cannot support those whom it encourages down that path.
The other point that became clear at the meeting was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). In several areas registration officers are intimidating, threatening and harassing all sorts of people to return the forms within three days, and it is implied that if they do not a £50 penalty will come into force.

Mr. William McKelvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency I have just discovered that those who are dishing out poll tax forms are not only eagerly and zealously collecting them—it is 10p to hand one out and 40p to bring back a completed form—but are insisting that elderly people should fill in the forms, and even filling in the forms and signing them on those people's behalf? That must be illegal and I am certainly having that investigated in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend from the Ayrshire mafia. My hon. Friend rightly describes the unfortunate activities of those who are becoming known as bounty hunters in certain parts of Scotland.
The Minister should be careful and he should have a wee word with Mr. John Brewis about what it is like to be the ex-hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Protest meetings are not only taking place in places such as Cumnock town hall. Let us consider what The Galloway Gazette said on Saturday 23 April. The headline ran:
Larger hall needed as 200 turn out to Poll Tax 'Stop It' campaign meeting".
That meeting took place in the Minister's constituency. Mr. Dangerfield, a Stranraer solicitor, chaired the meeting —he does not sound like a Labour supporter to me—and he is reported as saying:
the way Tory voters who will benefit from the Community Charge had still opposed the legislation 'makes me proud to be Scottish'".
He quoted from the Tory Reform Group—I think that the Secretary of State used to be a member of that; Michael Ancram was. Mr. Dangerfield quoted from the Tory Reform Group pamphlet that said:
Poll tax is fair only in the sense that the Black Death was fair—it is indiscriminate.
We did not say that, the Tories did. Mr. Dangerfield quoted those words in Stranraer—part of the Minister's constituency—at the packed meeting. The Galloway Gazette also reported that:
Rev. Thomson said that his worry about the Poll Tax was both as a parish minister and as an individual … Mr. Thomson said that people had to find 'any ways we can to help at a local level, to try to bring home to the Government our concern'.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister will not meet such people.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right; the Minister is not prepared to meet such people and listen to their concerns. The Minister need only read the leader in The Galloway Gazette to realise that, in Galloway, the writing is on the wall for him as it was for Michael Ancram, Anna McCurley——

Mr. Galbraith: Michael Hirst.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that timely prompt from my hon. Friend. The writing was on the wall for all those people who served on the Scottish poll tax Bill Committee and the same will be true of the Minister.
The leader in The Galloway Gazette says:
Democratic accountability, the Tories argue, demands the Poll Tax, but there are many waverers now in the party who will be urging caution and now is surely the time to think again.
If The Galloway Gazette is now calling for time to think again it must be time for the Minister to shake in his shoes.
At the meeting held in Cumnock town hall the feeling that came through loud arid clear was that we must obstruct and oppose registration by every legal means. That is what the "Stop It" campaign has said, that is what the Labour party says and I believe that is what the Scottish Social and Liberal Democrats—what a mouthful —are saying. The Churches and trade unions in Scotland are also saying the same thing.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has, quite properly, harangued the SNF'. He should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who put some direct questions to Gordon Wilson during a programme in which he and I participated. Gordon


Wilson ducked those questions and, equally, gave no suggestion that he would be prepared to give legal advice to all those whom he is advising to break the law. Is that not typical of the SNP?

Mr. Foulkes: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and, since that is a dangerous position to be in, I shall return to the theme of my speech.
Over the weekend I got my poll tax registration form and I have already amassed a whole series of questions to put to the registration officer before I can even contemplate filling it out. Who is the responsible person in my household? [Interruption.] Apart from the person to whom it is addressed—myself—my wife and indeed my mother are also in the household. I have already told the Minister that that lady strongly objects to that part of the registration form where she must put her date of birth— there is no conceivable reason for that. As Members of Parliament we have a legitimate question—given that we also have to live down here—regarding which is our main residence. That is not clear on the form. I have a young son of 17 who is currently in the middle of examinations. How do I know whether or where he will be a student during the course of the next financial year? I cannot answer that question, but that is just the beginning regarding the questions that need to be answered.
7.15 pm
Many of the officers who have been asked to administer the registration say that it is becoming an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare. The Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that the poll tax will cost twice as much as the rates to administer—other estimates say that it will cost three times as much. The way things are going I believe that it will cost more than three times as much to raise exactly the same amount of money. Surely that is crazy.

Mr. Home Robertson: How is my hon. Friend advising his constituents to reply to the question on the form that says:
If no-one is solely or mainly resident in the premises, please write 'no-one.'"?

Mr. Foulkes: Earlier on we needed clairvoyance to predict debts, now we need spirits to complete the form. My hon. Friend, in his usual eloquent and humorous way, has illustrated one of the many, manifest ridiculous aspects of the poll tax form.
The message that comes across loud and clear is that we must obstruct the poll tax. We are organising the obstruction campaign because we are convinced that sensible members of the House of Lords—we have already heard from Lord St. John of Fawsley—will throw out the legislation. We in Scotland must delay the implementation of the poll tax until it is defeated, if not in this Chamber, in the other place. We shall then hold the Secretary of State for Scotland to his promise, that if the legislation does not go through for England it will be scrapped for Scotland. In answer to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), that is what the Secretary of State said and that is on record.
The poll tax is unfair and unworkable. In Scotland we shall do everything we can to obstruct it. We shall do

everything we can to obstruct it for England in the House of Commons. We shall do everything we can to make sure that it never sees the light of day.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have sat through almost all of the five days of consideration of the English Bill. It is curious that here, in the Scottish debate, it is as though the seasons are rather more advanced than they are south of the border. The English have got as far as the early spring; we are approaching high summer because we know more about the proposals.
The tragedy of all this is that the House of Commons is not being allowed to do its proper job because we are under the guillotine. If we were not under the guillotine the Bill would have what Enoch Powell, on another memorable occasion, called "the smell of death" about it. It would have been half way to destruction because of the kind of ribaldry to which it has been subjected by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). My hon. Friend has, quite properly, made a joke of many things, but they are serious points. They are creepy crawly things that are coming out from under the stones.
The trouble is that it was very difficult to interest the Scots in the first place. It was even more difficult to interest the English. During the last election campaign—I hope that I am forgiven one personal reminiscence—I was in the Hyndburn constituency visiting proud Accrington. I was rebuked by the Labour candidate for spending 10 minutes of my speech on the poll tax. We have come some way since then.
As is my wont during English debates, I wish to ask some questions. The first was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). What has been said to those people who will receive 40p for each completed form? There is far more than anecdotal evidence that some of them are behaving roughly, and notices going up saying "Judas" are very unpleasant. We must ask whether it is worth the candle. Under what instructions and guidelines are they operating and what have they been told by the Government? Some of us believe that they may be exceeding what they have been told to do.
Secondly, in the debate late last Wednesday on joint liability, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill and other colleagues participated, we heard that even in England, which is a year behind us, people are deciding not to ask their grandmothers, their great aunts and others to live in the family home but are deciding that they should go elsewhere. All of us will have heard personal cases from our constituents. I do not wish to exaggerate the position because I do not believe that there has been much chucking-out of people, but in some cases the decision has been made not to take them in.
What have the Government done about that? I want the Minister to tell us whether the Scottish Office is monitoring the position. There is no evidence that it is taking into account matters such as the variation in need.
If the Bill goes ahead, many worthwhile people of all parties, not least the Conservative party, who would have gone into local government will have second thoughts. It may not be worth the candle to become a councillor. It is an honourable profession now, but in the future it may be rather different, and our country will be the poorer.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), as ever solicitous of my welfare, urged me to speak to the former Member of Parliament for Galloway, Mr. John Brewis, to find out what it was like to be defeated. Of course, he was never defeated as the Conservative Member for Galloway. He retired after a long and distinguished career. If I had to find a defeated Member, I would have to go to the Scottish National party and talk to Mr. George Thompson, who was defeated in 1979 and 1983.

Mr. Foulkes: As I recall. I asked the Minister to find out what it was like to be the former Member for Galloway.

Mr. Lang: Whether the hon. Gentleman said that or whether he used the word "defeated", his purpose was clear from his reference to my former colleague in the House.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said that he had wanted to debate several other amendments. I should have been happy to debate them, and we have managed to debate some of the points in those other amendments. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred to the use of postcards by Strathclyde community charge registration officer. The hon. Lady mentioned the alleged intimidation of a mentally handicapped person in her constituency. She will appreciate that I cannot comment on the case without knowing all the details, but I can say that intimidation has no part in the procedure.
The procedures adopted by the Strathclyde community charge registration officer were examined carefully in a recent court case brought by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). He was turned down on all four counts, and the sheriff found that the procedures being used were "convenient, sensible and practical". The postcard in question makes it clear that if there is a difficulty with the form, the canvasser will help in its completion.
The hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked about the penalty on executors who fail to notify a death. The civil penalties in the 1987 Act do not apply to this provision. There is no provision for a penalty in the case of non-notification by the executors. The sanction on them is that until the deceased is deleted from the register, he and his estate will continue to be liable to pay the personal community charge. Therefore, it will be part of the executor's duties to the deceased's estate to ensure that notice is given to the community charge registration officer. When the officer is notified by the executor, he can amend the register retrospectively to the date of death. Any excess community charge that may have been paid will be repayable.
Moving from death to birth, the hon. Member for Cathcart asked me whether the date of birth would be kept private. I assure him that the date of birth will not be part of the section of the register that is available for public inspection. For the internal purposes of a local authority, the system may generate reference numbers from the date of birth for each individual, but they will not be numbers which a person is required to memorise or quote when he moves from one authority to another. Nor, as has been suggested in some quarters, will identity cards be issued.
During the passage of the Scottish Act, strong representations were made by local authority practitioners, including the Rating and Valuation Association, that an identifier was necessary to distinguish between people of the same name living at a single address or to allow the checking of the identifying numbers of individuals who move from one registration area to another. The need for that was subsequently underlined by Cipfa Services Limited in its report on the operational aspects of the community charge system.
The hon. Members for Cathcart and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked about exemptions For visiting forces. The spouses of members of visiting forces who are citizens of the United Kingdom are not exempt. The exemption for members of visiting forces is an exemption from the personal community charge. If a member of such a force buys a second home in the United Kingdom, he may be liable for the standard community charge. I appreciate that that is important in the hon. Lady's constituency, since such a person is currently liable for rates.
Local authorities will not lose out financially, nor will their community charge payers, because of the community charge exemption for visiting forces. The rateable value of property occupied by visiting forces is determined by the Rating of Government Property Department in consultation with the local assessor. The department pays the rates for the property direct to the local authority and recovers a proportion, known as the beneficial proportion, from the visiting force. The beneficial proportion reflects the extent to which rates are payable for property services rather than personal services and is paid by the visiting forces by international agreement. The proportion is negotiated with the Governments concerned. The Government will be considering with those other Governments what similar arrangements may apply under the community charge system. Those arrangements will be designed to ensure that authorities need not bear an unreasonable burden as a result of the exemption for members of visiting forces who live in their areas.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked me about the uniform business rate. We have always made it clear that legislation is likely to be needed to complete the harmonisation process. Legislation to introduce a uniform business rate will be needed after the harmonisation processes are complete, and it is premature to consider that now. In the meantime, we have made arrangements to freeze and index-link poundages.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that amendment No. 96, which relates to inspection of the register, would mean that community charge registration would become a requirement for obtaining local authority services. That is the worst sort of scaremongering. The terms on which inspection of the register will be allowed have been made clear. They are limited to purposes connected with the administration of the community charge. The hon. Gentleman asked how a community charge registration officer would know that someone was about to be resident. An example would be when a house is sold and the seller's lawyer informs the registration officer of the name of the buyer well before he moves in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked me to confirm that responsibility for completing the form and for paying the charge were not


one and the same. I am happy to do so. Indeed, the registration form mentions that point in three different places.
The community charge in Scotland is now the law of the land and anyone who advocates disrupting the procedures, as we have heard from Opposition Members, must bear in mind the penalties that can be imposed upon those who fail to provide information or who provide false information when they are properly required to do so by registration officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was absolutely right to refer to the shocking distortions and misrepresentations among the Opposition parties. By their antics in opposing the community charge they have shown their carelessness not only with the truth but with the rule of law. When I accused them in a recent debate of flirting with lawlessness, I think I was being too kind; now, day after day, week after week, in this House and outside it, Opposition Members demonstrate their contempt for parliamentary democracy, and in doing so they reveal that they are unfit for Government.
I urge hon. Members to approve the amendment as one more step towards the smooth and efficient implementation—despite the worst endeavours of the Opposition parties—of a new system of paying for local government that will abolish the discredited and unfair domestic rates system and put in its place a better, fairer system.

It being half-past Seven o'clock. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 230.

Division No. 274]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Aspinwall, Jack
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butler, Chris


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chope, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Churchill, Mr


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)





Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Irving, Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maclean, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mans, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Maples, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marlow, Tony


Grist, Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Hal


Harris, David
Mills, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hayes, Jerry
Moate, Roger


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heddle, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moss, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hill, James
Neale, Gerrard


Hind, Kenneth
Needham, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip






Page, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Paice, James
Stokes, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Sumberg, David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Summerson, Hugo


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Price, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rattan, Keith
Thorne, Neil


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rost, Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buckley, George J.


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barron, Kevin
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Battle, John
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bell, Stuart
Clay, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald


Blair, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Cousins, Jim





Cox, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, Calum A.


Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McLeish, Henry


Dewar, Donald
Maclennan, Robert


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Douglas, Dick
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marek, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Michael, Alun


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foster, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliott


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


George, Bruce
Nellist, Dave


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Mildred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gould, Bryan
Parry, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Prescott, John


Hardy, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Heffer, Eric S.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Redmond, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Holland, Stuart
Reid, Dr John


Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Hoyle, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


Illsley, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Janner, Greville
Salmond, Alex


John, Brynmor
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Short, Clare


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lambie, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Litherland, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stort, Roger


Livsey, Richard
Strang, Gavin






Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Wilson, Brian


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Turner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Wray, Jimmy


Wall, Pat
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert N.
Mr. Tony Banks and


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Adam Ingram.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 144 and new clause 14.

Amendment made: No. 79, in page 70, leave out line 19.

No. 80, in page 70, leave out lines 22 to 24.

Clause 128

EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL CHARGE

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 70, line 28, leave out from '1987' to the end of line 33 and insert
', section 8 (liability for personal community charge) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (8) at the end there shall be added the following paragraphs—

"(e) persons who have a relevant association with a visiting force;
(f) persons who are members of a headquarters and dependants of such persons."

(3) After subsection (9) there shall be added the following subsections—
(10) For the purpose of paragraph (e) of subsection (8) above—

(a) a visiting force, in relation to any particular time in a financial year, is anybody, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country to which any provision in Part I of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies at that time; and
(b) a person has, at any particular time in a financial year, a relevant association with a visiting force if he has at that time such an association within the meaning of that Part.

(11) For the purposes of paragraph (0 of subsection (8) above—

(a) a headquarters, in relation to any particular time in a financial year, is a headquarters or organisation designated at that time by an Order in Council under section 1 of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964;
(b) a person is, at any particular time in a financial year, a member of a headquarters if he is at that time such a member within the meaning of the Schedule to that Act; and
(c) a person is, at any particular time in a financial year, a dependant of such a member if he is at that time such a dependant within the meaning of that Schedule.".'.[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 129

COMMUNITY CHARGES: CROSS-BORDER INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 71, line 31, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 134

SEPARATE ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 73, line 9, leave out
'pools shall be established and maintained'

and insert 'accounts shall be kept'.

Clause 136

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 177, in page 73, line 33, leave out '(6)' and insert '(7)'.

No. 74, in page 73, line 38, after first 'above' insert
`or section [Commencement: Scotland] below'.

No. 178, in page 73, line 45, at end insert—
`(7) The power to make an order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 below shall be exercisable as there mentioned.' —[Mr. Lang].

Clause 137

INTERPRETATION: AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 74, leave out line 13. —[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 141

FINANCE

Amendment made: No. 109, in page 75, line 26, at end insert—
'(2)' Any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. Lang.]

Clause 143

EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 121, in page 75, line 32, after
'Sections', insert '(Social security),'.

No. 82, in page 75, line 30, leave out 'paragraphs 1 and 8' and insert
'section [Commencement: Scotland] above, Part II'.

No. 76, in page 75, line 32, after '131', insert
'136, 137(1), 138, 139(5) and (6), 140'

No. 77, in page 75, line 34, leave out 'and section 129(6) above'—[Mr. Lang.]

Schedule 12

TRIBUNALS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 110, line 38, at end insert—
'(2) The regulations may include such provision as he sees fit in relation to membership, staff, accommodation, equipment, procedure and other matters relating to the tribunals.'.

No. 36, in page 110, line 46, leave out 'General Rate Act 1967' and insert
'1967 Act or any other Act'.

No. 37, in page 111, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert—

'Membership

4.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1 above may include provision—

(a) that the number of members of a tribunal is to be such as is determined by the Secretary of State;
(b) for the appointment by a prescribed person or persons of the members of each tribunal;
(c) that one of the members is to be president of the tribunal;
(d) that the president is to be appointed by the members by a prescribed method, and that if one is not so appointed within a prescribed period the president is to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting such prescribed persons as he sees fit;
(e) for the appointment by the president of a tribunal of some of its members (who may include the president) to the position of chairman;


(f)that persons are to be disqualified from becoming or continuing to be members in prescribed circumstances;
(g) that members are to be disqualified from acting in cases falling within prescribed descriptions;
(h) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify persons from becoming or continuing to be members;
(i) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify members from acting;
(j) as to the duration (subject to disqualification, termination or resignation) of any appointment as president or member or chairman;
(k) allowing the Secretary of State to terminate an appointment as president;
(l) requiring the person or persons who appointed a member to terminate the appointment if the Secretary of State so directs after consulting the person or persons who made the appointment;
(m) allowing a president to terminate a person's appointment as chairman, and requiring a president to do so if the Secretary of State directs him to do so;
(n) allowing a person appointed as president or member or chairman to resign if such notice as may be prescribed is given;
(o) that a person who ceases to be president or member or chairman is to be eligible for re-appointment in prescribed circumstances;
(p) that a member is to be entitled to such travelling, subsistence and other allowances as may be prescribed.

(2) The regulations may include provision for the administration of members' allowances to be the responsibility of the clerk of the tribunal.

Staff

5.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1 above may include provision—

(a) that a tribunal shall appoint a clerk of the tribunal and may appoint other employees;
(b) that a tribunal shall pay to its employees such remuneration and allowances as the tribunal determines;
(c) that (subject to disqualification) employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the tribunal may determine;
(d) that an appointment shall be invalid unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State;
(e) that a determination as to remuneration or allowances shall be valid unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the Treasury's consent;
(f) that persons are to be disqualified from becoming or continuing to be employees in prescribed circum-stances;
(g) that employees are to be disqualified from acting in cases falling within prescribed descriptions;
(h) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify persons from becoming or continuing to be employees;
(i) that prescribed factors are not to disqualify employees from acting.

(2) The regulations may include provision—

(a) that any function of making an appointment, or determing remuneration or allowances or other terms or conditions, may be performed on behalf of a tribunal by two or more of its members;
(b) that one of those members must be the president.

(3)The regulations may include provision for the administration of employees' remuneration and allowances to be the responsibility of the clerk of the tribunal.

(4) The regulations may include provision that where a person ceases to be employed by a local valuation panel and immediately becomes employed by a valuation and community charge tribunal, for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 his period of employment by the panel shall count as a period of employment by the tribunal and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above a local valuation panel is a local valuation panel constituted under a scheme under section 88 of the 1967 Act.

(6) Employment with a valuation and community charge tribunal shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) "a valuation and community charge tribunal" shall be inserted after "Police Complaints Authority".

Accommodation and equipment

5A.—(1) Regulations under paragraph 1 above may include provision requiring a tribunal to—

(a) maintain a permanent office, and
(b) make arrangements to secure that the tribunal has such other accommodation, and such secretarial and other equipment, as is sufficient for the performance of its functions.

(2) The regulations may include provision that any function as to accommodation or equipment may be performed on behalf of a tribunal by its clerk.

Procedure

5B.—(1) Regulations under paragraph I above may include—

(a) provision for determining which tribunal is to deal with an appeal;
(b) provision that prescribed functions of a tribunal relating to an appeal may be discharged on its behalf by its clerk or other prescribed employee;
(c) provision that prescribed functions of a tribunal relating to an appeal may be discharged on its behalf by one of its members;
(d) provision that prescribed functions of a tribunal relating to an appeal may be discharged on its behalf by some of its members;
(e) provision as to the selection of a member who is to discharge functions relating to an appeal on behalf of a tribunal (which may include provision that he must be the president or a chairman);
(f) provision as to the number and selection of members who are to discharge functions relating to an appeal on behalf of a tribunal (which may include provision that one of them must be the president or a chairman).

(2) The regulations may include provision—

(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed for initiating an appeal, and authorising or requiring it to be dismissed if it is not initiated within a prescribed time;
(b) authorising an appeal to be disposed of on the basis of written representations in prescribed circumstances;
(c) prescribing the procedure to be followed before the hearing of an appeal;
(d) authorising an appeal to be withdrawn before the hearing in prescribed circumstances.

(3) The regulations may include provision prescribing the procedure to be followed at the hearing of an appeal, and such provision may include provision—

(a) requiring the hearing to take place in public except in prescribed circumstances;
(b) as to the persons entitled to appear and to be heard on behalf of parties to the appeal;
(c)authorising the hearing to proceed in the absence of a party or parties to the appeal in prescribed circumstances;
(d) requiring persons to attend to give evidence and produce documents;
(e) as to evidence generally (whether written evidence or oral evidence given under oath or affirmation) and, in particular, as to the use as evidence of information supplied under Schedule 8 or 11 above or under regulations under Schedule 2 above or under section 82 of the 1967 Act;
(f) as to the adjournment of the hearing.

(4) The regulations may include provision—

(a) that where two or more members of a tribunal are acting the decision of the majority is to prevail or, if the votes are equal, the appeal is to be reheard;
(b) requiring reasons for a decision to be given;
(c) authorising a decision to be given orally or in writing;
(d) authorising a decision to be reserved;


(e) authorising or requiring an order to be made in consequence of a decision;
(f) that an order may require a register or list to be altered (prospectively or retrospectively), or an estimate to be altered, or a designation of an individual as a responsible individual to be revoked, or a penalty to be quashed or reduced, or a designation under section 5 above to be revoked;
(g) that an order may require any ancillary matter to be attended to;
(h) authorising or requiring a tribunal to review or set aside a decision, or to vary or revoke an order, of the tribunal in prescribed circumstances.

(5) The regulations may include provision—

(a) requiring decisions and orders to be recorded;
(b) as to the proof of decisions and orders;
(c) authorising the correction of clerical errors in records of decisions and orders;
(d) requiring decisions, orders and corrections to be communicated to the parties to appeals.

(6) The regulations may include provision that, subject to any other provision of the regulations, a tribunal may regulate its own procedure.

(7) The regulations may include provision that a person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement imposed by the regulations under sub-paragraph (3)(d) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

Orders

5C.—(1) This paragraph applies where a tribunal orders—

(a) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to alter the authority's community charges register,
(b) the valuation officer for a charging authority to alter a local non-domestic rating list of the authority,
(c) the central valuation officer to alter a central non-domestic rating list,
(d) a charging authority to alter the valuation list maintained by the authority under section 59 above, or
(e) a charging authority to alter its residual rating list.

(2) If the order is recorded in accordance with any provision included in regulations under paragraph 1 above, the officer or authority ordered shall—

(a) alter the register or list concerned accordingly, and
(b) attend to any ancillary matter provided for in the order (such as the repayment of an amount, or the allowance of an amount by way of deduction against a sum due).

5D.—(1) This paragraph applies where a tribunal orders—

(a) a charging authority to alter an estimate, made for the purposes of regulations under Schedule 2 above, of the amount a person is liable to pay in respect of a community charge of the authority,
(b) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to revoke a designation of an individual as a responsible individual under regulations under Schedule 2 above,
(c) a charging authority to quash or reduce a penalty imposed by it under Schedule 3 above,
(d) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to quash or reduce a penalty imposed by him under Schedule 3 above, or
(e) the community charges registration officer for a charging authority to revoke a designation under section 5 above.

(2) If the order is recorded in accordance with any provision included in regulations under paragraph 1 above, the authority or officer ordered shall—

(a) alter the estimate, revoke the designation or quash or reduce the penalty accordingly, and
(b) attend to any ancillary matter provided for in the order (such as the repayment of an amount, or the allowance of an amount by way of deduction against a sum due).

Inspection of records

5E.—(1) This paragraph applies to records which relate to

decisions and orders of a tribunal and which are required to be made under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 1 above.

(2) The regulations may include provision that a person may, at a reasonable time stated by or on behalf of the tribunal concerned and without making payment, inspect records to which this paragraph applies at the tribunal's permanent office.

(3) The regulations may include provision that if without reasonable excuse a person having custody of records to which this paragraph applies intentionally obstructs a person in exercising a right under any provision included under sub-paragraph (2) above, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

Finance

5F. The Secretary of State shall make such payments as are necessary to meet any expenditure incurred in or in connection with the performance by tribunals of their functions (whether as regards remuneration, allowances, accommodation, equipment or otherwise).'

No. 39, in page 111, line 27, leave out from 'amending' to end of line 28 and insert

', repealing or revoking any provision of or made under the 1967 Act or any other Act;
(c) provision as to orders, which may include provision requiring the carrying out of an order made by a valuation and community charge tribunal in exercising jurisdiction conferred by the religious.

Interpretation

7. In this Schedule "the 1967 Act" means the General Rate Act 1967.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Schedule 13

AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 82A, in page 111, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert—

'PART I

ENGLAND AND WALES'

No. 38, in page 112, line 22, at end insert—

'Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (c. 62)

4A. In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 (tribunals under direct supervision of Council on Tribunals) the following shall be inserted after paragraph 12—

Local taxation

12A. Valuation and community charge tribunals established by regulations under Schedule 12 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.".'.

No. 123, in page 113, line 2, at end insert—

'Social Security Act 1986 (c.50)

7A.—(1) The Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 20 (income-related benefits) in subsection (11) after the definition of married couple there shall be inserted—
"residual rate" shall be construed in accordance with Part IV of the 1988 Act;".

(3) In section 28 (arrangements for housing benefit)—

(a) in subsections (l)(a) and (3)(a) for "rating" (in each place where the word occurs) there shall be substituted "charging";
(b) in subsections (1) and (2) for "rates" (in each place where the word occurs) there shall be substituted "a residual rate".

(4) In section 30 (housing benefit finance) in subsection (l)(a) for "rating" there shall be substituted "charging".

(5) In section 56 (legal proceedings) in subsection (4)(a) for "rating" there shall be substituted "charging".

(6) This paragraph shall have effect as regards housing benefit which is, or falls to be, provided in respect of a financial year beginning in or after 1990, and as regards subsidy in respect of such benefit.'

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 113, line 2, at end insert—

'PART II

SCOTLAND

Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (c. 60.)

7A. In section 6 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (ascertainment of certain values of lands and heritages) after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(8A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under this subsection prescribe the principles to be applied in arriving at the net annual value of lands and heritages under subsection (8) above.
(8B) Regulations made under subsection (8A) above—

(a) may be made so as to apply differently to different areas or in relation to different cases or classes of case;
(b) may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient; and
(c) shall be made statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.

No. 84, in page 113, line 2, at end insert—

'Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65)

7B. After section 110 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 there shall be inserted the following new section—

Estimate of amount due for non-domestic district rate

110A.—(1) In relation to each financial year a regional council shall estimate the amount due to the council of each district which falls within their region in respect of the non-domestic district rate for that year as that amount falls to be ascertained in pursuance of regulations made under section 110 of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of making the estimate mentioned in subsection (1) above, it shall be assumed that in respect of the financial year concerned both the regional council and the district council determine the maximum non-domestic rate prescribed in relation to each of them in respect of that financial year under section 3(2) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.

(3) The regional council shall, before such date may be prescribed in relation to each financial year, notify the council of each district in their region of the estimate made under subsection (1) above in relation to that district for that financial year.".'

No. 85, in page 113, line 3 at end insert—

'7D.—(l) Section 2 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (exclusion of domestic subjects from valuation roll) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) Where, after 1st April 1989 by virtue of regulations made under subsection (4) below, any lands and heritages or any parts of lands and heritages—

(a) cease to be domestic subjects, they shall be entered in the valuation roll;
(b) becomes domestic subjects, any entry in the valuation roll in respect of such lands and heritages shall be deleted,
with effect from such date as may be prescribed by such regulations.

(3) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) The Secretary of State may vary the definition of domestic subjects in subsection (3) above by including or excluding such lands and heritages or parts thereof or class or classes of lands and heritages or parts thereof as may be prescribed.".'

No. 255, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—

'7A.—(l) Section 3 of that Act (non-domestic rates) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) after the word "earlier" there shall be inserted the words "or such lesser figure as may be specified in (or calculated in a manner

specified in) an order made by the Treasury in respect of the financial year in respect of which the calculation is to be made".

(3) After subsection (10) there is be added the following subsection—
(11) An order made under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above shall be made by statutory instrument; but such an order amending or revoking another) shall not be effective unless it is approved by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament before—

(a) regulations have been made under subsection (2) above prescribing a maximum non-domestic rate in relation to any local authority in respect of that financial year; and
(b) the first order made by the Secretary of State, in respect of that year, under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4 to this Act has been approved by a resolution of that House.".'.

No. 86, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—

'7E.—(l) Section 5 of that Act (statutory and other references to rateable values etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) for the words "Where in any enactment" there shall be substituted the words "subject to subsection (3A) below, where in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument)".

(3) After the said subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3A) Where in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a subordinate instrument or an enactment which falls to be construed in accordance with subsection (3) above) there is a reference to a rate or rateable value or to any other factor connected with rating, the Secretary of State may make regulations providing that the reference shall instead be of some factor other than the one connected with rating.
(3B) Regulations may provide as mentioned in subsection (3A) above—

(a) as regards such enactment, or enactments of such description, as may be prescribed;
(b) in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit (whether by amending enactments or other-wise)." '

No. 87, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—

'7F—(1) Section 8 of that Act (liability for personal community charge) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for the words "aged 18 or over who is solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority in any financial year shall be Liable to pay" there shall be substituted the words "who is, at any time in a financial year—

(a) aged 18 or over;
(b) solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority; and
(c) not exempt from liability under subsection (8) below or by virtue of section 30(2) of this Act,

shall be liable to pay, in respect of that time,".

(3) For subsections (2) and (3) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, a person's liability to pay the personal community charge in respect of any time in a financial year shall subsist until the date on which the deletion of the entry in the register in respect of such liability takes effect.
(3) Where a person is liable to pay the personal community charge in respect only of part of a financial year, the amount which he is liable to pay shall be calculated by apportionment on a daily basis.".'

No. 88, in page 113, line 3, at end insert—

'7G.—(1) Section 10 of that Act (liability for and calculation of standard community charge) shall be amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(8) Subject to subsections (8B) and (9) below, the standard community charge shall not be payable in respect of relevant premises in respect of whichever is the shorter of—

(a) the period for which the premises are unoccupied and unfurnished;


(b) a period of three months or such longer period as the levying authority may determine;
and the levying authority may determine that different periods shall have effect for different premises or different classes of premises.
(8A) For the purposes of subsection (8) above 'relevant premises' are premises to which this section applies, being premises—

(a) which are unoccupied and unfurnished; and
(b) as regards which notice is given to the levying authority by a person liable to pay the standard community charge in respect of the premises that they are unoccupied and unfurnished.

(8B) Subsection (8) above shall have effect in respect of any relevant premises only once during any period (whether it fall in one or more than one financial year) in respect of which the standard community charge is, or would but for that subsection be, payable in respect of the premises.
(8C) Before making a determination under paragraph (b) of subsection (8) above a levying authority which is a regional council shall consult the district council for the district in which the premises are situated.".

(3) In subsection (9) of that section for the words "that subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (8A) above".

(4) After the said subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(9A) Where a person is liable to pay the standard community charge in respect only of part of a financial year, the amount which he is liable to pay shall be calculated by apportionment on a daily basis.

(5) In paragraph (b) of subsection (10) after the word "charge" there shall be inserted the words "which would, if the premises were for the whole of that financial year premises to which this section applies and were not, at any time in that year, relevant premises for the purposes of subsection (8) above, be".'.

No. 89, in page 113, line 4, leave out paragraph 8 and insert the following paragraph.
'8.—(1) Section 11 of that Act (liability for and calculation of collective community charge) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (7)—
(a) after the words "shall be" there shall be inserted the words "the amount which is"; and

No. 90, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'9. After section 11 of that Act there shall be inserted the following new section—

Estimate of amount produced in districts

11A.—(1) In relation to each financial year a regional council shall estimate the amount produced by each of the district community charges for that year in each district in their region as that amount falls to be ascertained in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act.

(2) For the purposes of making the estimate mentioned in subsection (1) above, it shall he assumed that in respect of the financial year concerned both the regional council and the district council determine—

(a) a personal community charge of £1, or such other amount as may be prescribed; and
(b) a standard community charge multiplier of 2, or such other number as may be prescribed.

(3) The regional council shall, before such date as may be prescribed in relation to each financial year, notify the council of each district in their region of the estimate made under subsection (1) above in relation to that district for that financial year.

(4) In this section "district community charges" has the same meaning as in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act.".'.

(b) such requirements as to—

(i) publication of the effect of this subsection and subsection (4) above; and
(ii) the right of a registered person to have an entry relating to him omitted from the extract, as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(c) that the regional or islands council shall make the extract available


(i) for inspection by members of the public to such extent and at such times and places; and
(ii) for sale to such extent, in such form, on such terms and conditions and at such places, as may be prescribed.".'.

No. 91, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—

'10.—(1) Section 13 of that Act (Community Charges Register) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) the name of every person liable to pay any of the community charges in the registration area;
(b) in the case of a person liable to pay the personal community charge, the address of his sole or main residence;
(c) in the case of a person liable to pay the standard or collective community charge, his address and the address of the premises in the registration area in respect of which that charge is payable;
(cc) in the case of premises in respect of which the collective community charge is payable, the collective community charge multiplier determined for the time being in respect of those premises;".

(3) In paragraph (e) of that subsection for the word "these" there shall be substituted the word "the".'

No. 92, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'11. In section 14(2) of that Act (notice of registration) for the words "person whose name is entered in the register" there shall be substituted the words "registered person".'.

No. 93, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'12.—(1) Section 15 of that Act (amendment of community charges register) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (5)—

(a) for the words "any amendment to the register which might affect that person, but" there shall be substituted the words "or amending any entry in the register which might affect that person, but, except in the case of an amendment such as is mentioned in subsection (6) below,";
(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) copy of the entry or (as the case may be) the entry as amended; or
(b) where the amendment consists of the deletion of an entry, notification of such deletion";
(c) for paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(i) the effect of the entry or (as the case may be) of the amendment to the entry in the register;".

(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(6) Where an amendment requires to be made to an entry in the register in consequence of the death of a registered person, the registration officer shall send to the executors of the deceased notice of the fact that he has, with effect from the date of the deceased's death, deleted the entry in the register relating to the deceased.
(7) Except where the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Act to the amendment of the register or of any entry in the register shall include a reference to the deletion of such an entry.".'.

No. 94, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'13.—(1) Section 16 of that Act (registration appeals) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for the words "A person who is registered in the register as being liable to pay any of the community charges" there shall be substituted the words "A registered person".

(3) In paragraph (a) of that subsection for the words "in respect of his liability to pay any of the community charges" there shall be substituted the words "in relation to him".

(4) In paragraph (b) of that subsection for the word "any" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the word "the".'.

No. 95, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'14. In section 18 of that Act (obtaining of information from individuals) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—


(2A) Where a registered person dies his executors shall notify the registration officer of the date of the person's death—

(a) in the case of executors nominate, not later than one month after that date;
(b) in the case of executors dative, not later than one month after the date of their appointment."

No. 95A, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'15. After the said section 18 there shall be inserted the following section—

Obtaining of information generally

18A. (1) The registration officer may require any person whom he reasonably believes is, has been or is about to be resident in the registration area to supply to him such information—

(a) as the registration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the exercise of his functions under this Act; and
(b) as is in the possession or control of such person.

(2) A person required to supply any information in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall supply the information within such period, not being less than 21 days, as the registration officer may require.

(3) Subsections (10) to (12) of section 17 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as they have for the purposes of that section; and for the purposes of this section any reference in those subsections—

(a) to a responsible person shall be construed as a reference to a person required to supply information under subsection (1) above;
(b) to the prescribed period shall be construed as a reference to the period mentioned in subsection (2) above; and
(c) to a requirement under subsection (5) shall be construed as a reference to a requirement under subsection (1) above.".'

No. 96, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
`16.—(1) Section 20 of that Act (inspection of register) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) for sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(i) the addresses of premises in the registration area;
(ii) the name of any person appearing in an entry relating to such premises (but not so as to enable him to ascertain whether that person resides at the address of such premises); and
(iii) the collective community charge multiplier determined for the time being in relation to any premises (other than premises of such class or classes as may be prescribed) in respect of which a collective community charge is payable."

(3) After paragraph (c) of that subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(d) any such other person as may be prescribed shall be entitled to inspect the register to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, the register shall be available for inspection to the extent permitted by subsections (1) and (2) above in such circumstances, subject to such restrictions and in such other places in the registration area as may be prescribed. (3B) In relation to as much of the register as is kept otherwise than in documentary form, a right of inspection conferred by this section is a right to inspect the information in the register in legible form.
(5) for subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require the registration officer to make such extracts of the register, disclosing the information specified in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (2)(a) above, as may be prescribed.
(5) Regulations made under subsection (4) above may prescribe—
(a) such date or dates in each financial year on which an extract is to be made;

No. 97, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—

'17. In section 26(1) of that Act (interpretation) after the definition of "register" there shall be inserted the following—
`registered person' means a person who is registered in the register as being liable to pay any of the community charges, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly; ".'.

No. 98, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
`18.—(1) Schedule 2 to that Act (Levy, collection, payment and recovery of community charges) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2(1) (demand notices) at the beginning there shall be inserted—
Subject to paragraph 2A below,".

(3) After paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
2A. Where a person's liability to pay a community charge arises only by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability)—

(a) the levying authority shall not issue a demand notice before the date prescribed under paragraph 2(1) above; but
(b) they shall issue such a notice at such time as it appears to them that they will be unable to recover payment of the community charge from any other person who is liable to pay the charge.".

(4) In paragraph 3 (appeals against demand notices) in sub-paragraph (a) after the word "against" there shall be inserted the words—

"(i) where the liability to pay the community charge is stated to be by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability), such liability, and
(ii) in every case,".

(5) In paragraph 4 (payment of community charges)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (3) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (8) at the end there shall be added the words "or on such other day in that month as the levying authority may determine".

(6) In paragraph 5 (arrangements with housing bodies) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—

"(7) No document issued by a housing body in pursuance of an arrangement made under this paragraph to a person liable to pay a community charge or any instalment thereof shall contain or refer to arrangements for any payment other than the payment of such community charge or instalment."

(7) In paragraph 6 (accounting or district community charges)—

(a) for sub-paragraph (3) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"(3) The Secretary of State may prescribe what deductions are to be made in estimating and ascertaining the amount produced by each of the regional and district community charges levied by a regional council."; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (6) of the words "'district community charges' has" there shall be substituted the words "'regional community charges' and `district community charges' have".'.

No. 233, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
'19. In the said Schedule 2 in paragraph 4(7) for the words "rebate under or by virtue of section 24 of this Act from that amount or instalment" there shall be substituted the words "reduction in that amount or instalment in consequence of any community charge benefit under Part II of the Social Security Act 1986".'.

No. 236, in page 113, line 7, at end insert—
`.In the said Schedule 2, in paragraph 5 (arrangements with housing bodies) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added the words "or of any of the authority's responsibilities as regards community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986.'—[Mr. Lang.]

Schedule 14

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 115, line 18, column 3, at end insert—



`In section 2, in subsec-tion (3), paragraph (b); and in subsection (5) the words "or part of a class" and the words "(3)(b) or".'.

No. 100, in page 115, line 26, column 3, at end insert—



In section 11(11), in paragraph (c) the words "under this Act".



In section 20, in subsection (3) the words "and at such other places as may be prescribed" and the words from "and in relation" to the end.



In Schedule 2, paragraph 4(2).'.

No. 234, in page 115, line 26, column 3, at end insert—



`Section [24.'—[Mr. Lang.]

New Clause 14

COMMENCEMENT: SCOTLAND

`.The provisions of this Act which extend only to Scotland shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes.'—[Mr. Lang.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not gladly miss any opportunity to dance another little jig on the deck of the Government's coffin ship, otherwise known as the poll tax Bill. I was very surprised to learn on returning to the Chamber that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) had cast aspersions on me by saying that I was not present in the Chamber during the debate. The only reason that I was not in the Chamber is that I was attending——

Mr. Nicholas Soames: That is not a point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is for the Chair to determine points of order. That is not a point of order. Attendance in the Chamber has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.

Mr. Wilson: Further to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West to withdraw his remarks?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not in order. As I have said, the attendance of hon. Members in the Chamber or anywhere else in this place has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find myself in the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame. North (Mr. Wilson) in that I would like to be able to correct gratuitous remarks that were made in ignorance.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it clear that this matter has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.

Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?

Mr. Butterfill: It is that, further to the points of order that have been made, may I tell the House that I did not identify either of the hon. Gentlemen who have made the points of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That has cleared the matter up nicely. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) clearly said that he regretted the absence during the debate of the other Scottish Members who served on the Standing Committee. Those Members were my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Tomorrow's Hansard will let us all know exactly what was said.

New Clause 10

ACQUISITION OF INTERESTS LESS THAN FREEHOLD

`After section 79 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Acquisition of leasehold etc. treated as acquisition of freehold

79A.—(1) In any case where—

(a) an interest in or right over land is acquired on or after 10th March 1988, and
(b) the interest or right confers a right to possession or occupation of the land, and
(c) the interest or right is neither the fee simple absolute in possession nor an interest or right not exceeding one year in duration, and
(d) the acquisition is neither by gift nor by deed with no consideration other than the presumed consideration imported by the deed,

then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the authority making the acquisition shall be treated as having acquired, for a consideration which is not in money alone, the fee simple absolute in possession in that land, subject only to the interests and rights referred to in subsection (2) below.

(2) The interests and rights referred to in subsection (1) above are those (if any) to which the interest or right which is actually acquired is subject at the time of the acquisition, excluding any which arise by virtue of a mortgage or charge to secure the payment of money.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) `possession' has the same meaning as in the Law of Property Act 1925, that is to say, it includes receipt of rents and profits or the right to receive the same, if any; and
(b) 'occupation' means occupation without possession but, subject to that, includes future occupation.

(4) Subsection (12) of section 80 below applies for the purposes of this section but where, by virtue of that subsection, an authority is taken to acquire an interest exceeding one year in duration, that interest shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above as the fee simple absolute in possession.".'—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 11—Prescribed expenditure—Government new clause 12—Share and loan capital and guarantee payments—and Government amendment No. 42.

Mr. Ridley: These new clauses and the consequential amendment in the title of the Bill were foreshadowed in the statement that I made on 9 March. Together with the regulations, they deal with two major defects that have become apparent in the existing legislation and regulations dealing with capital controls. The regulations, which are down for debate later, give effect to the statement about the leasing changes, lease and leaseback. They are temporary, in that they will hold the position until there have been consultations and further consideration. Amending regulations will be provided and these are merely a stopgap to hold the position until we have had time to consult.
First, some councils were raising money by lease and leaseback deals in order to avoid the consequences of not having balanced their revenue budgets. The law does not permit local authorities to borrow to cover revenue deficits, nor does it permit them to pledge their assets as security. It was clearly necessary to prevent them from achieving the same result and avoiding these restrictions by lease and leaseback.
Secondly, both leasing and barter were being used by more and more councils to undertake capital expenditure over and above that provided for in the Government's public expenditure plans. The measures do not prevent barter or leasing from being used, but bring such transactions within the spending limits laid down.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Would the Secretary of State like to tell the House how he makes these new capital expenditure controls consistent with the encouragement given by the Secretary of State for Wales to health authorities in Wales? He said that when they contemplate building new hospitals they should organise it in such a way that the private sector builds the hospitals and leases them back to the health authorities in Wales. That is encouraging public authorities to do sale and leaseback deals with the private sector and contradicts what the Secretary of State is saying.

Mr. Ridley: All I am saying is that that has to be done within the system of capital controls and not as an addition to it. That does not mean to say that it cannot still be done, which is the point that I was making.
In broad terms, the new clauses deal with three matters. First, they bring barter fully within the capital control system. Part barter transactions have always been subject to control, so this hardly represents a major change of policy. Secondly, they amend the statutory rules that determine how much prescribed expenditure is scored when assets are acquired by leasing. Thirdly, they bring within capital controls the acquisition of share or loan capital in the making of payments under the guarantees of borrowing.
The new regulations provide that acquisition of a lease of property will be outside capital expenditure controls

only if it is for less than three years, if it is not renewable for a longer period, if it is not an extension of a previous lease or if it is not part of a larger transaction. That is a fair precis of the overall effect of these clauses.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have listened with care to what the Secretary of State said, and I heard him say that barter deals will be included in the regulations if they are entire barter deals as opposed to part barter deals. Why has such concern been expressed by the Association of District Councils which, as the Secretary of State will know, said in response to his announcement on 9 March that the new clauses will put many carefully negotiated good schemes in jeopardy?

Mr. Ridley: The reason is that district councils are doing a lot of barter deals. I have something to say later which may be of comfort to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall not go into the detail of the new clauses as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, When (Mr. Chope), will provide any information that hon. Members ask for at the end of the debate, but I should like to enlarge on the reasons for the measures. All Governments control local authority capital expenditure, which is part of public expenditure. That is not a proposition that any political party seriously opposes. I think that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) agreed with that proposition.
A short definition of public expenditure is that it involves things that are paid for now or later out of taxation. I emphasise the words "or later". Like individuals, the Government have some scope for deferring, or advancing, the actual payments, whether by borrowing, by credit or by hire purchase, but the commitments once entered into have to be paid for eventually. It is the normal accounting convention, and has been ever since public expenditure planning was introduced in its modern form, that expenditure should be recorded when assets are acquired or when work is done and not when the payments are actually made.
That is the basic philosophy of the local authority capital control system. When capital assets move in and out of the ownership or control of the local authority sector, the full value of those assets should be counted as public expenditure. Equally, when improvements are carried out to assets already within that sector, the full cost should be counted. The amount that is counted represents the call that is being made on the nation's resources. It does not and should not depend on the precise arrangements made to finance the expenditure.
Similarly, when assets move out of the local authority sector, a capital receipt is recorded. Again, the amount of the receipt does not necessarily reflect the financial terms of the disposal. It measures the worth of the assets that have been released.
The purpose of the capital control system is to secure that public expenditure and local authority capital assets, less capital receipts from the disposal of such assets, match the public expenditure provisions that have been made. We do not intend to stop barter deals, merely to bring them within the capital control system. They have been used to avoid it; why else would authorities go to the trouble of keeping the transaction off their books?
Barter involves transfers of assets into and out of the public sector. It cannot be right that such transfers should


take place outside the system under which the acquisition of assets by local authorities is controlled. Barter often does not offer good value for money. In some cases, it involves a middleman, who takes a cut. It usually involves selling to a single bidder who might not want it for himself. That is no way for a local authority to realise the best price of its assets on behalf of its ratepayers, because it cannot test the market.
Any scheme which takes place off the books is not necessarily the highest priority, nor subject to the same financial scrutiny that would apply if it was competing against other schemes within the capital control system. It may be claimed that barter schemes do not affect public expenditure, but I do not believe that. There is an opportunity cost involved. If a local authority sold a piece of surplus land for cash, public expenditure, and often public debt, would be reduced. If it swaps the land for a swimming pool, the opportunity for that reduction would be lost.
Barter was taking place on such a scale that it had to be brought under the capital control system. Since 9 March, we have been able to find out much more accurately what was happening. Two things have emerged. First, many schemes of both types are in the pipeline where commitment has been made or expenditure incurred. Secondly, the prescribed proportion rules bite harshly on some barter schemes such as land swaps and property rationalisation.
Therefore, I have two important and major relaxations to announce to the House this evening. The first concerns schemes that are in the pipeline. In my statement on 9 March, I said:
I and my right hon. Friends will consider issuing additional capital allocations where we are satisfied that the agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure or borrowing controls."—[Official Report. 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 327.]
I propose to use two criteria in interpreting what one might call cases in the pipeline. The first involves the extent to which expenditure has already been incurred or other commitments entered into, whether by the local authority or by any other party. For example, sites might have been acquired, design work might have been undertaken or tenants might have been rehoused, or perhaps there is evidence of some other commitment.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ridley: In a moment.
The second criterion is the extent to which the scheme is designed neither to increase the stock of assets over which the local authority has effective control, nor to raise money on the security of the authority's assets. If local authorities consider that schemes which were in the pipeline on 9 March meet both those criteria, they should apply to my Department for extra capital allocations.

Mr. Heffer: Has the Minister considered which local authorities fall into one category and which fall into the other? Does it mean that by chance Conservative councils are in one category—that which he will treat sympathetic-ally—and that Labour councils are in the other category?

Mr. Ridley: I have looked at that, and it does not mean what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Tony Speller: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the case of a small and careful local authority—the North Devon district council? The sheer scale of expenditure on harbour improvements at Ilfracombe, the building of marinas and the dredging of the docks will be far outside the capital ability of such a council. The only way that such a development can be achieved is to go to a developer—in fact, it is seeking ideas from more than one company. They involve barter between council land and developer money. If the council goes outside the normal capital expenditure controls and, although our authority is allowed to spend only some £250,000 annually, on this one occasion only it seeks to spend £2 million, and barter is essential for the finance, will this form of harbour and commercial improvement be ruled out?

Mr. Ridley: I have no knowledge of the scheme that my hon. Friend has described. If he will send me details of it, we shall certainly consider it.
I was coming to the second major relaxation which possibly could be of help in that case. Obviously, I cannot make a decision without having seen the details. It applies only to barter deals.
The representations which I have received since my statement on 9 March have also persuaded me that the existing legislation and regulations are a particular constraint on what I might call "in and out" transactions. By these I mean schemes where a particular asset is acquired so that another asset, or possibly the same asset, can be disposed of and where the disposal can happen only if the acquisition happens first. The inhibiting effect of the capital control system on property rationalisations was commented on by the Audit Commission in its report on local authority property which drew attention to the massive scope for local authorities to make better use of their property holdings.
We already have a limited back-to-back scheme under which additional allocations can be given to facilitate the acquisition of assets and their subsequent sale, as might happen when a council uses its land assembly powers to facilitate a private sector development. I propose to replace that scheme by an "in-and-out" scheme. Additional allocations will be available for three classes of transaction: first, the exchange of land for land; secondly, the replacement of existing assets held by the local authority by assets to be used for broadly similar purposes; and, thirdly, schemes in which the main intention is to facilitate investment by the private sector in assets which, when the scheme is completed, will be owned, operated and controlled by the private sector.

Mr. Dalyell: We have had difficulties with the legal advice that the Secretary of State has received from the lawyers who advise the Department of the Environment. Is it not rather difficult in law to establish [the Secretary of State seems to depend on this—motive and intention? One can deduce things from circumstantial evidence, but in law it is difficult to prove these things.

8 pm

Mr. Ridley: No, because the full nature of any agreement will be submitted and it is the ultimate objective of that agreement which we shall consider. The hon.
Gentleman might prefer me to withdraw these concessions, but I do not think that I will do so, because I believe that they will be helpful.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way. It is not easy, hearing about such concessions in a debate like this, to understand specifically what the Secretary of State intends. He will be aware that two major projects in Carrick district council, within my area, have been affected, and the council has made representations to him. Would it be possible to make some effort about the problems of Carrick district council, and for somebody from the Department to meet an all-party delegation, as has been requested, to try to sort through these problems? Secondly, can he comment on the circumstances that arise in one case, where a major asset is in urgent need of renewal or replacement and the council is considering disposing of another asset to pay for that? That would be completely impossible within capital restraints, but the asset will otherwise waste away. Will that come within the terms of the Secretary of State's concessions?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot interpret these conditions in relation to any particular scheme, whether in theory or in detail, at the Dispatch Box tonight. That is not something for the hon. Gentleman to worry about. We shall consider any scheme that his council puts forward and see any delegation that he wishes to bring. There is now to be a period of consultation with the local authorities on these proposals, and when that is concluded the Government will bring forward new regulations which will be the opportunity to comment on the final plan.
One of the difficulties with this matter has been that, until my statement on 9 March, I did not know what was going on or how much of it was outside the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, because local authorities took good care not to tell me because they knew perfectly well it was outside the capital controls regime. Now that we know what is going on, we can make a more sensible analysis of how to deal with it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?'

Mr. Ridley: Yes, I will give way, but this is the last occasion, because I do not want to take too much time.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I am not surprised that he made a statement without knowing the full implications of the situation. Equally, he is now asking us to understand some fairly complicated proposals without being 100 per cent. certain of what is involved. I only hope that he is more certain than he was on 9 March. The London borough of Newham is involved in a number of leaseback and barter deals, all of which are aimed at doing something about the growing homelessness problem in the area. In general terms, would such schemes be acceptable, as we are trying to address a serious problem?

Mr. Ridley: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, a large amount of business was being transacted under both these heads, but it was carefully concealed from my Department because——

Mr. Rooker: How did the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Ridley: We found out enough to be able to make the statement on 9 March. Now we know the full picture, we can consider it much more carefully, and I have already said that we will.
On the second point, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) must study the particular schemes in relation to what I have said. I know that he cannot assimilate this and entirely understand it just like that and without some advice. However, there is an opportunity for consultation and representations before we come forward with the final regulations, which will be designed only after the matters have had public discussion.
I trust that these two major relaxations will be of considerable comfort to those hon. Members who have been alarmed by particular cases which local authorities have brought to their attention. I think that they will deal with many of those that we have already seen, and they should make for a fairer transition and an easier new regime.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's important statement is a massive climbdown from his statement of 9 March, which he made, as he has admitted in his curiously disarming way, when he did riot know what was going on.
It is a new doctrine of Government that Ministers come to Parliament and announce major changes in capital investment programmes for the length and breadth of the country when, on their own admission, they do not know what they are talking about. That is extraordinary. Tonight, we have seen just how ill-considered arid downright wrong that politically motivated statement was. It was motivated not by any common sense, evidence or investigation into the circumstances. It was a political response, partly, I regret to say, engendered by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and others. The irony of it was that the project that the hon. Member for Acton complained of was, on the admission of the Secretary of State, lawful and in order and it went ahead.
The Secretary of State should have said this in his announcement but I invite him to say it now. He should withdraw the regulations that he is asking the House to approve after 10 o'clock tonight. We knew before his statement, but it is even clearer now, that those regulations are simply a stopgap measure. Why is the Secretary of State so unclear about all this when his own Green Paper, published in 1986, asserted that the Government had had these matters under consideration since 1984? Here we are in 1988 and the Government still do not have a clear idea of what they are seeking to do and why.
The reality is that the Secretary of State has been forced to make this announcement not least because of the massive protest from his own colleagues in local government. When he made his statement on 9 March, he implied that the statement was necessary because of the activities of a handful of mainly Labour-controlled local authorities. We knew that it was not true then, and we certainly have the evidence to demonstrate that it is not true now. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State has backed off.
The Secretary of State has manoeuvred oddly throughout this whole business. On 9 March, certain members of the press were provided with a background briefing by officials of the Department of the Environment. That information was never presented to Parliament or published formally. It named certain projects in certain


local authorities. It emerged that much of it was based on anecdotal hearsay evidence, as the Secretary of State was subsequently forced to admit.
When I asked, through my office, for a copy of the information, my private secretary received a letter from the Secretary of State's private secretary dated 10 March, which said:
I attach a copy of a note which I gather our press officers gave to some members of the Press who asked for examples of the kind of local authority schemes which might be affected by the terms of the Secretary of State's announcement. This was not a note prepared with formal distribution in mind. You will see that it is a list of examples of some of the schemes that the Department has heard about from various sources, primarily MPs, councillors and press reports. It is not in any sense intended as a definitive list of such schemes.
It is outrageous that the Secretary of State should make statements of such importance based on hearsay, gossip and innuendo. That is what the note confesses to. When the Secretary of State——

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, of course I will give way in a moment when I have finished my point. The hon. Gentleman should learn about all the correspondence before he intervenes.
When the Secretary of State was challenged on these points by councillor Jack Layden, the leader of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, he said in his reply dated 29 March:
The list was a list of examples of large proposed leasing schemes. It was not intended as a full summary of available evidence and neither was it prepared for publication.
However, it was given to the press. It was not prepared for publication, but it was given to the press, not Parliament.

Mr. Butterfill: As the hon. Gentleman might conceivably assent that some local authorities have deliberately tried to conceal what was going on in this area, does he suggest that the Government should employ an army of snoopers, as no doubt he would call them, to root out the details or is it not easier to proceed as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proceeded, and force a situation in which the details become apparent?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that authorities were trying to conceal what was happening. Of course these things would have to be matters for the record for members of the authority. As the hon. Gentleman is talking about concealment——

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is talking about concealment, I want to stress that there is far more concealment in central Government under this Prime Minister than there is in local government under the control of parties of any political persuasion. Local government is far more open than central Government ever has been and it remains so.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the schemes appear to have been assigned and pushed through without opposition party councillors even being told? If councils will not tell their own councillors, does the hon. Gentleman believe that they will tell me?

Dr. Cunningham: We are quite familiar with these unsubstantiated allegations, unsupported by any definitive statements or evidence. We are aware of the general smear on local government. If the Secretary of State has evidence, why does he not name the authorities involved? He has made a very serious allegation. Which authority is he talking about? Will he name one, two, three or four authorities?
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and the Secretary of State have referred to concealment. They must think that we have very short memories. Have they forgotten about the leak of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Environment's office and the Prime Minister's office which occurred a few days ago? There can be no better example of concealment and deception in recent political history than that. Secret memos were sent back and forth aimed at misleading not the Opposition, but Conservative Members of Parliament. If I were a Conservative Member, I would keep pretty damned quiet about concealment at the moment.
The Secretary of State said in his statement:
I have to inform the House that, once again, a minority of local authorities are employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them under the existing capital control system. Only a minority of authorities are involved".
That certainly was not true then and the right hon. Gentleman knew that. All the evidence on the record now shows that that was not true. It was an attempt to mislead public opinion about those decisions in local government.
I challenged the Secretary of State later on in his statement. I asked:
Will he confirm, for example, that his proposals will affect large and small local authorities right across the country, under Tory as well as Labour control? Will he confirm that the proposals will affect the capital programmes of many of those authorities, including house-building programmes, redevelopment programmes and capital expenditure on leisure centres?"—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 326–29.]
The Secretary of State sought to imply that all that was not true.

Mr. Dalyell: May I refer my hon. Friend to column 1170 of the Official Report of 22 April 1988 in respect of the leaks between the Department of the Environment and the Prime Minister which are being thoroughly investigated? If they are being thoroughly investigated, could we at some stage be told something about them?

Dr. Cunningham: As ever, my hon. Friend has made an important point. It is perhaps worth asking the Secretary of State whether his ministerial colleagues are being questioned along with the civil servants. As we know from the recent past that a number of these alleged leaks have not been leaks at all, but deliberate acts authorised by no less a person than the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Of course we know that. Sir Crawley should observe the normal behaviour of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and be seen and not heard.
To reinforce my point about authorities under the control of different political parties, I want to list a few examples almost at random. The Association of District Councils has claimed that 150 of its members had schemes affected by the announcement. Nearly 150 local authority projects worth more than £350 million may be abandoned because of the Government's clampdown on leaseback


and barter deals. Those are overwhelmingly Tory-controlled authorities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is shaking her head. I will cite one or two examples. The first relates to Spelthorne. Where is the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) now? That authority is Tory controlled. It has a scheme for a town centre redevelopment, involving the disposal of a council-owned site to provide leisure facilities. Tory-controlled Tamworth has a scheme for the modernisation of a housing estate. Tory-controlled Vale of White Horse in Oxfordshire has a scheme for major renovation works to a block of flats and the provision of new dwellings. Tory-controlled Wyre in Lancashire has a scheme for the renovation of a windmill——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way at the moment. I can assure the hon. Lady that I will give way, but not at the moment. I heard the hon. Member for Lancaster say, "No, no, no" from a sedentary position when I referred to Tory-controlled authorities. Presumably at that point she did not realise that I was going to refer to one rather close to home.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I suggest that it is rather more sensible to do up a windmill, which has lasted since the 13th century, than to lease back parking meters or sell Labour-controlled town halls as some Labour-controlled councils are doing? That cannot conceivably be described as right.

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with the hon. Lady's first point. The windmill renovation is a sensible project. However, it is a pity that the hon. Lady did not make those comments on 9 March when she almost certainly supported her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
As there is apparently some dispute or lack of knowledge about Tory-controlled local authorities, what about Tory-controlled St. Albans? It has a scheme for the exchange of land with North West Hertfordshire health authority to enable hospital expansion. Can we accept that Basingstoke is Tory-controlled? Will the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West accept that Bournemouth is Tory-controlled? Bournemouth has a redevelopment scheme for a major entertainments complex and car parking. Tory-controlled North Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire have schemes——

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He may have noticed on that list, a copy of which I have received, Lancaster district council, which has no one party in overall control, has a scheme for housing improvement which has been caught by the system. Was the hon. Lady aware that that scheme was caught? if so, is she happy that housing in her constituency will not be improved?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for finally springing the trap on the hon. Lady.
The reality is that the Secretary of State, as is often his wont, dived into the situation without the slightest idea of where he was going—without a scintilla of evidence to

support his actions. He has been lambasted by Tory-controlled local authorities up and down the country and he is backing off fast. As is usual with his decisions, that is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, we shall have to read much of the small print of what he has said, because we are still not convinced that the criteria he seeks to employ are as fair and as objective as he has implied tonight.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am deeply concerned about the contents of the new clauses. I do not consider myself bound to support them in the Lobbies tonight. They are new clauses tabled towards the end of debates on an important Bill. I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of District Councils, and I have received much of the briefing material to which Opposition Members have referred. I have also had a lengthy meeting with my own Macclesfield borough council, which is one of the few in the north-west having overall Conservative control. Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) could not be there, but he has been subsequently fully briefed. The new clauses will adversely affect a well-managed authority in the north-west of England, which is Tory-controlled and which, over the past 10 years, has achieved the lowest rate precept rise in the whole of Cheshire. It is often accused of penny pinching, and yet some of the most necessary and vital projects currently being planned by that authority are being jeopardised as a result of the new clauses.
My right hon. Friend has received a letter from me, and he has paid me the courtesy of responding personally because his Department has not had time to prepare a detailed reply. I shall listen to the Front Bench response to this short debate before deciding what I shall do in the Division Lobbies. However, I must tell my right hon. Friend that, as matters currently stand, I shall be voting against the new clauses. I believe that they will be very damaging to many responsible, well-managed authorities. I say to my right hon. Friend that there are also some well-managed Labour authorities. One or two of them are close to my constituency in Cheshire, in the Greater Manchester area, and it is wrong that authorities which have shown themselves to be responsible should be treated in that way.
The technicalities of the proposed changes and my right hon. Friend's concessions are complex—but, in short, they will bring further types of transactions within what I can only describe as already restricted control, whereas they were previously considered a legitimate supplement to the use of capital receipts. The need for such a supplement is illustrated by the extent of the permissible borrowing approval allowed by the Government to the Macclesfield borough council. For all non-housing projects—such as car parks, pedestrianisation, public lavatories and pavilions—the council's allocation is in the region of £387,000, to which may be added a percentage—£30 per cent., as my right hon. Friend knows—of capital receipts. That latter aspect adds a further sum, averaging £500,000, to the amont of money that my borough council can spend.
The council's current allocation for its housing improvement programme of £1·4 million is reducing and, even with capital receipts, that programme—which is much needed, much in demand and well planned—must be constantly rephased, with the result that projects are delayed. I shall quickly spell out several of those projects, though as a result of the relaxations my right hon. Friend


has made tonight, one or two of them may be allowed to proceed. First, Macclesfield borough council has an ambition to create centralised headquarters. The benefits deriving from increased efficiency, better communication and avoidance of duplication are widely recognised—as I hope they will be by my right hon. Friend's Department.
In addition, a number of the council's existing offices in various parts of the town are in poor condition and require considerable capital expenditure if they are to be put into a reasonable state. Work on that scheme has proceeded for more than 12 months and we are within a week or two of the final submission of offers from the private sector. The scheme involves a commercial element, the value of which would be offset against the cost of offices. That value will now score under the proposed restrictions.
I turn to another important matter that relates also to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. Our area has tremendous potential for economic growth and there is great pressure for new car parking, if that potential is to be fully exploited. In Macclesfield, the council has already agreed a lease and leaseback transaction to provide funding in due course for the Jordan Gate scheme. It is unlikely to be funded in the foreseeable future in any other way.
In Wilmslow, in the Tatton constituency, the Church street scheme is a proposed barter deal, where the freehold of the land for development will be exchanged for a decked car park, providing an additional 100 spaces in Wilmslow town centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and I know the area very well, and that development is vital if the area is to react to the demands placed upon it and to exploit fully its potential.
In Macclesfield, again, there is a proposal for the Churchill way scheme, containing a mixture of lease and leaseback, together with barter, which would provide much-needed parking spaces in the town centre. I say to any right hon. or hon. Member who does not know Macclesfield—and there may be many of them—that it is currently choking to death with cars, particularly at weekends, because there are inadequate parking facilities. With the growth of commercial development, there is demand for it. The Duke street scheme would provide 800 parking spaces under a leaseback arrangement.
It was intended to achieve a much-needed opening up of land in East Titherington by a development agreement with the private sector, encouraged by my right hon. Friend; again, there would be an element of barter and exchange for provision of costly infrastructure. That scheme is now in jeopardy.
I turn to another vital area, and it is one that my right hon. Friend may admit falls within the concessions that he made. It concerns a serious problem that arises in relation to Airey houses in the Macclesfield borough council. It is a matter with which both my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and myself are concerned. Last year, we received numerous inquiries from tenants of those houses asking about their future. I have many Airey properties in my constituency, in the villages of Bosley, Poynton, Adlington, Lyme Green, Rainow, Lower Withington and Nether Alderley. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has such houses in Tabley.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am utterly convinced by the case which the hon. Gentleman is making, but did he actually explain it to the Minister prior to his announcement on 9 March, or did he do so afterwards?

Mr. Winterton: I must tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that, initially, I was totally unaware that my council would be caught in that way. Indeed, I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister was also unaware, but he has been fair enough to say so from the Dispatch Box. Subsequently, I have naturally taken a deep interest in the matter, having served in local government for a number of years.
If I may return to the subject of Airey houses, after much tenant consultation, the council proposes, subject to planning difficulties and considerations, to demolish the Airey houses. It will do so in an interesting way, replacing them with other houses under a partnership arrangement with builders in the private sector, using private finance for the initial construction.
Tenants wishing to do so will be able to acquire their new houses at the discounted rate subject to the cost-floor provision. Those unable or not wishing to buy will continue to live in a property of their choice as secure tenants of Macclesfield borough council. Thus, the council will have to buy the properties at cost from the developer. Any remaining properties in the various locations will be sold on the open market.
8.30 pm
The proposals prior to my right hon. Friend's announcement would have enabled the council to set off 100 per cent. of sales income against the cost of acquiring properties for continued renting. That would minimise the impact on the council's housing improvement payment allocation of just £1·4 million for 1988–89. The understanding of the new arrangement requires the cost of providing the accommodation for renting to score as prescribed expenditure. This will be between £2 million and £3 million, depending on how many tenants exercise the right to buy. I am sure that I do not need to explain further to my right hon. Friend or the House how the measures in the new clauses and amendment that we are debating will adversely affect the very sound and prudent policy being implemented by my local authority.
I sometimes find it difficult to understand the Treasury when it is seeking to limit the expenditure of capital receipts. The Treasury says that it will be bad for the PSBR if that is not done, but we no longer have any problem with the PSBR, because the position is currently negative. If my right hon. Friend believes in local government, as I certainly do, he should say so, but if the Government do not believe in it any longer, they should say that it is no longer wanted. However, if we want well-managed local authorities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, they should be encouraged and not kicked in the shins for managing not only their assets, but the local government functions for all those who live in the district.
I hope that the concessions made tonight will allow many of the proposals that I have outlined, if not all, to go forward, because they have been properly planned and properly financed. My local authority is not trying to bridge a short-term revenue problem by selling capital assets; it is trying to provide better facilities and a better


infrastructure for all the people in the Macclesfield borough area, the vast majority of whom are Conservative supporters.

Mr. Terry Davis: As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the new clauses have come forward very late in our proceedings. It is particularly unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to scrutinise them in Committee.
I shall ask a specific question, which I hope will be answered by the Minister who winds up the debate. In view of the new clauses and the announcement made by the Secretary of State, I should like to know how a council will be affected if an agreement was concluded before 9 March. What I want to raise, and would have raised in Committee had it been possible, is the effect on schemes in the pipeline. There are different stages in the progress on an agreement. I appreciate that, as the Secretary of State explained, there will be some concessions; that he will look at particular schemes, and perhaps exempt them from the constraints of the new clauses. Nevertheless, I should like to know the answer to my question.
Let us suppose that a council concluded an agreement before 9 March, and it was signed, sealed but not delivered —in the sense that it had not taken effect, so that the land had not been transferred, although the agreement to do so had been made. The council, of course, would have done that in the confident belief that it was acting according to the law, as it existed before 9 March. It would have received no indication that the Secretary of State intended to change the law. Would the council be able to proceed without the scheme having been scored against its capital expenditure?

Mr. Ridley: The answer is yes. If any commitment had been undertaken, any money had been expended or any design work had been done, as I said in my speech, the scheme would clearly be in the pipeline.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) deliberately misled the House. I have now ascertained——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady did not intend to say that an hon. Member had deliberately misled the House. Will she please withdraw her remark and rephrase it?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall withdraw it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall say that the hon. Gentleman accidentally misled the House. The Marsh mill at Thornton is not, and never has been, on a leaseback system. It is in the capital programme, and has in no way been impeded by the action of the Government. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will get his facts rather straighter when discussing my borough council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Davis: As I was saying before that intervention, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his assurance. I shall therefore conclude my remarks. I see no point in taking up debating time in pursuing it further. The Secretary of State has given us a wide assurance in telling us that schemes that were only in the design stage, as opposed to the agreement stage, would be exempt from the restrictions, and I am grateful for that assurance.

Mr. Speller: I shall not detain the House for long. I was grateful for a helpful comment from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and wish to develop only two points, which may affect not only my area but other areas in the more rural parts of the west country.
First, let me say that there is dismay and consternation among good local authorities which see perfectly well the reasons to stop what might be called less intelligent councils from seeking ways around logical Government control on excessive capital expenditure. Councils such as mine—the North Devon and Mid-Devon district councils —accept that entirely, and are in no way against the principle. Nor, indeed, am I.
The danger comes when the relatively low-spending and low-resource authorities without a large ratepaying base seek a substantial development that involves occasional major expenditure, perhaps once or twice in 10 years. It is then that they are scared of being—as they would put it—capped.
My other point goes beyond that. We need to extend the harbour and build at Ilfra.combe, and the only way that we can finance that development is by using a developer's cash on our council land. I hope that there is no problem here. It is a one-off, and we hope for exemption from control on such capital expenditure. However, on the hills behind Ilfracombe we have a hydro plant and what we hope will be a large wind farm to produce for the generating board. We shall have problems there if we are not permitted to reduce rates and exchange land for development. It will involve a big development and big expenditure.
I merely ask my right hon. Friend to think kindly of authorities that have no intention of excessive spending, but which occasionally have to engage in work for which their rate-borne income could never provide. I ask my right hon. Friend to treat those authorities well. They are not trying to swap or to cheat. They are merely seeking to use their assets in a sensible, logical manner, for the economic benefit of their communities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This has been a strange debate. First, it is clear that it is a debate about barter deals and not about leaseback. That will come later. Secondly, the Secretary of State effectively came to the House to admit that he had been taken by surprise by his own announcement. The policy of the Government had turned round, as it were, and bitten the hand that feeds it. The Government have become used in the past to making decisions first and asking questions later, but in this instance they announced the decision, made the inquiries later, and then suddenly discovered what horrible things they had done. There is, however, the consolation that perhaps occasionally messages get through.
Let us look at some of the headlines that have appeared in the specialist press in the past few weeks. Surveyor of 7 April has the headline
Tories attack barter deal ban".
The magazine Building, on 8 April, stated:
Housebuilders rage against end of council barter deals
The article below the headline began:
Construction of 50,000 homes a year could be scuppered and inner city regeneration project wrecked if Government proposals to end land deals between councils and contractors go ahead.
Later in the article, the director of the House-Builders Federation is quoted as saying:


The Government must realise that this is a standard way of doing business, particularly in the inner cities. This could scupper as much as 25 per cent. of the housebuilding programme. If they made a mistake on this one, they could have shot the whole inner city drive in the foot".
A headline in Surveyor on 21 April was:
Housing for elderly and disabled under threat from Finance Bill".
The finance officer of the Association of District Councils said:
While the Secretary of State clearly aimed at ending the excesses of a few, he has really gone too far and is putting in jeopardy a large number of schemes".
The Financial Times of today said:
Nearly 150 district council projects worth more than £350 million may have to be abandoned … The schemes range in value from under £1 million to a £45 million housing development in Oxford and a £40 million redevelopment of Bournemouth's Pavilion entertainments centre.
We could give many examples. Yet again, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) showed that the evidence is contrary to what the Government thought. On some matters, the councils have done just what the Government asked. Tower Hamlets, which my colleagues control, has been trying to find money for more housing for the homeless. If it had suggested a scheme exactly on these lines, it would have been caught by the ban. I should be interested to know whether my own council of Southwark would be caught. It has not started actual work on such schemes, but if they are precluded, all that Southwark will be able to do is sell land for cash and spend 20 or 30 per cent. of the capital receipts.
That seems to fly in the face of Government policy. Other people have said that the Government's policy—whether we in the Opposition like it or not, we have to accept it—is that partnership deals with local authorities are what is required and that councils should work with the private sector and come to the best arrangements for them and the communities. Barter deals are not mortgages of the future as leaseback is—that is a different issue. They do not involve a cost to the ratepayers, because they are assessed as valuable in themselves. They offend against capital controls technically, but not fundamentally in terms of economic policy.
We do not expect the Secretary of State to apply his new concessions to every scheme. The Government entered this area of policy, like the poll tax, with the same motivation, saying, "The Government must control everything, no matter what local councils decide." The Government have now realised that that was a foolish way forward.
In the past year, many barter schemes have come before the Secretary of State. Many local authorities have asked him to confirm that one or other barter scheme is legal. Such schemes appeared then to be legal, and it appears that the Government have now accepted that they should be. I hope that the reality behind the concessions, which we welcome, is that in the event all such schemes that are good will be allowed through and eventually the Government will have the good grace to admit that they made a terrible mistake and that, quite often, local government knows what it is doing.

Mr. John Hannam: On Report, once or twice I have supported the principle of a clause but have been worried about the implications of the wording. I am in that position again tonight. I very much welcome the

concessions announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, especially the promise of consultation before new regulations are introduced.
As my right hon. Friend stated in his announcement on 9 March, the reason is to catch
a minority of local authorities … employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them". —[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 326.]
I concur with that objective, but I fear that the legislation is drafted so widely that it will catch many worthwhile schemes across the country, as we have heard from other hon. Members in the debate.
8.45 pm
It is true that certain local authorities have used the present regulations to fund revenue deficits, using schemes such as mortgaging municipal buildings and selling off parking meters to meet current expenditure, but most local authorities, certainly my own in Exeter, have adhered strictly to the law and the intention of the law. In Exeter, we have six schemes that are affected by the revised rules. All of them relate to matters of a capital nature. They all enjoy all-party local support. They are supported by commercial interests and are generally intended for the enhancement, improvement and future prosperity of the city and the area. There is no adverse effect on the ratepayers of the city, which has the lowest district rate in Devon. It is difficult to see why those much-needed schemes, which I should like to describe, should not go ahead without delay and without undue bureaucratic delay by officials.
I look forward to looking more closely at the details of the changes announced tonight. The legislation as presently drafted appears to have been produced in haste and, in my view, needs to be withdrawn for further consideration and amendment.
The first scheme that has been affected by the revised rules concerns the relocation of the livestock market in Exeter. Exeter is not just a regional centre for administration and shopping, but it is an important centre in a large agricultural county. The city council owns and operates a thriving livestock market in a partnership arrangement with a private sector consortium of market auctioneers. The market has been on its present site since the 1930s and is now inadequate by reason of its location, its means of access and its size. It also fails to meet present-day standards of hygiene and convenience of operation.
The council, in full consultation with all interested parties and following a consultant's report, has decided to relocate the market to a new site, which the council owns. It is a complicated and costly project, estimated to cost £4·04 million. It enjoys total support from all parties in the area. It is supported by the Devon Member of the European Parliament, the market auctioneers and the National Farmers Union. The value of the existing site for redevelopment is sufficient to fund the scheme, but the existing site cannot be sold until the new market has been built. In August last year the council entered into an agreement with a merchant bank for the funding of the works in a manner that clearly did not give rise to prescribed expenditure under the law as it then stood, save for a small part of the cost, which would be funded directly by the council. The council has agreed terms for the sale of the existing site to a developer for a sum sufficient to meet the entire costs of the project. An application has been


made for an EEC grant, supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Member of the European Parliament, and is now at an advanced stage in its progress at Brussels.
The whole scheme may be in jeopardy, depending upon the correct interpretation of new clause 11, subsections (6) and (8), and upon the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The essential point is that the agreement to construct the new market was made before 10 March 1988 and the new section will come into force as from that date. Consideration, not in money, was given for the works prior to 10 March and although the work has commenced, a considerable amount remains to be done. I must ask for the reiteration of the assurance that works carried out after 10 March, pursuant to a legally binding agreement made before that date, are not intended to be caught by new clause 11. It would be wholly unreasonable for retrospective legislation to make unlawful work that is contractually committed by an agreement made perfectly lawfully prior to 10 March. I ask for a specific assurance on that point. There is no option as such to be exercised, but there is a mechanism whereby, as the project develops, the council has to produce building contracts, which the bank enters into as we go along.
One other area of great concern in my constituency of Exeter and in other parts of the country is that we should provide sufficient car parking spaces in the central areas of the city, particularly for shoppers and tourists visiting it. That view is endorsed by the chamber of commerce and trade and the English tourist board. It should be borne in mind that a city such as Exeter is the centre of a huge tourist region. It is also a major shopping centre. It is now faced with the challenge of several regional shopping centre proposals on the outskirts of the city, where there will be a generous provision of car parking. The Secretary of State is due to determine later in the year several planning appeals and applications for those out-of-town shopping centres.
To enhance the car parking provision in the central areas, the council has proposed three schemes for the provision of new car parks. It has been decided to grant a 125-year lease for office development of council-owned land adjacent to the civic offices on terms requiring the developer to construct a 290-space car park for the council. The important point is that the council will not receive a money consideration. The value of the lease will be set—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) wish to make an intervention? He is interrupting constantly.

Mr. Douglas: We have had special pleading after special pleading by Conservative Members who voted for the introduction of the guillotine for the various stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament. I find that reprehensible.

Mr. Hannam: Having spoken for six minutes and having listened to speeches of almost interminable length from Opposition Members, I take grave offence at that sort of comment. I am outlining the important——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Hannam: I shall not give way again during the remainder of my remarks. After the intervention of the

hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I realise that it would be unwise to allow another intervention and thereby prolong the debate.
I wish to continue—[interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West keep quiet or seek to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair and make his own speech? He is lowering the tone of the debate. An hon. Member was removed from the Chamber for making numerous interjections in a similar manner to that being adopted by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West. I hope that we shall not reach that position tonight. It is virtually impossible to make a speech when there are constant interjections.
The issues that I am raising are of great relevance and I press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take note of them. I can do without the interjections that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is making from a sedentary position. I do not know whether it is the custom north of the border——

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hannam: No, I shall not give way. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once, and I think that in the interests of time it would be worth while if I continued with my speech. I am trying to advance some serious arguments.
The effect of the Bill will be to draw in a range of proposals from local authorities, including Exeter, that would not incur extra expenditure for the ratepayers. No loss of capital would be involved. The technical provisions of a hastily drafted clause mean that the local council in my constituency is faced with the prospect of proceeding with schemes that are in the pipeline, or schemes which have been carefully formulated, or withdrawing them. If it proceeds with the schemes and it is found that they are not eligible within the framework that we are considering, the council will find that it is necessary to lower expenditure on other worthwhile schemes.
If the schemes that the council proceeds with are found not to be falling within the letter of the law and they are withdrawn, many important projects such as car parking, the development of leisure facilities, the provision of a new shopping centre and the development of the county ground where the county show is held each year might have to be put into cold storage at a time when there is a desperate need for them to be implemented.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies he will give further details of the concessions that have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The debate on the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 will provide ample opportunity for Opposition Members to voice their opinions. In that debate we could further discuss the various concessions and announcements that have been made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall be brief because I hope to be able to speak again on these matters when we discuss the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 after the Bill has been given a Third Reading.
If the Secretary of State had any sense of shame, he would apologise to the House for the way in which he inadvertently misled it during his announcement on 9 March. We know that that was not done with malice


aforethought. It happened because he did not know the facts, but that is something that we have come to expect from the right hon. Gentleman. He stumbles around like some poor old derelict from one balls-up to another. He should re-read what was said on 9 March. I shall not spare the Secretary of State's blushes, because it is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows so much more than he about what goes on in local government. My hon. Friend said:
May I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his announcement that these amendments will be presented to the House only on Report?
The Secretary of State's response suggested that he knew all about this at the time, but he now confesses that he knew nothing when he was making his announcement. He said:
Since the hon. Gentleman appears to be going to support the new amendments that I have said will be tabled, I cannot think why he wants such a great deal of time in which to debate them".—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 335–36.]
We wanted time because we wanted to get things right. The Secretary of State has still not achieved that, and he should be ashamed of himself. At least he should apologise to the House before we move on at 9 pm.

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been criticised for having announced important changes to the capital control regime on 9 March without having consultation beforehand. My right hon. Friend was right to take that course because experience shows that local authorities, when we have consulted before making an announcement, have taken advantage of the consultation period to take action to avoid consequences of the controls that we have sought to introduce.
In October 1986—[Interruption.] This may not be within the recollection of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who continues to interrupt. In October 1986, we announced our intention to bring the acquisition of vehicles, plant and machinery within the prescribed expenditure with effect from 1 April 1987. We subsequently consulted local government about the regulations to bring this into effect. Between the time of that announcement and the new regulations, local authorities entered into nearly £2 billion-worth of advance leasing deals. Many of the deals were rushed through in the laying period for the regulations. Recent reports have shown how imprudent some of the deals were. Some of the brokers who arranged them did not work out correctly the tax consequences and some authorities are now faced with substantial additional costs. Our approach in this instance is preferable to that which we adopted in October 1986.
The pipeline concession will make a great deal of difference and will go a long way to meet the anxieties which have been expressed. When the criteria are satisfied —when there is a commitment, there is no net increase in the stock of assets and it is not sought to raise money on the security of assets—the pipeline concession will apply. My hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke about the way in which the controls will affect small councils. It is worth emphasising the way in which we already take account of the position of small district councils by——

Dr. Cunningham: Does the Minister recall the letters of Councillor Cowd, the Conservative leader of Merton borough council, to The Times and The Daily Telegraph? He will be aware that Merton was involved in one of the schemes. Councillor Cowd wrote that Merton's scheme was
to unlock the authority's equity in its very substantial property holdings … the sum generated would have been actively invested to create income for the benefit of the owners of those assets, the borough's ratepayers.
That is what authorities have been doing throughout the country. Does not the Minister agree that that is sensible investment? His friend at Merton seems to think that it is.

Mr. Chope: I shall not comment on the Merton scheme.
The concessions that have been announced this evening by my right hon. Friend will apply to many schemes. I hope that there will be an opportunity for the points to be discussed in detail with departmental officials when necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter raised some of those points. He has been told quite clearly that the schemes in Exeter that were in the pipeline before the announcement on 9 March will certainly not be affected by the changes. The same is probably true of some of the Macclesfield schemes. They will satisfy some of the criteria to which my right hon. Friend has referred. The same is true also in relation to north Devon schemes that satisfy the criteria that have been announced by my right hon. Friend. As other hon. Members have said, there may be an opportunity later this evening to discuss some of these points in more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

It being nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of the Bill.

New clause 11

PRESCRIBED EXPENDITURE

`(1) In the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (in this section referred to as "the 1980 Act"), in section 71 (expenditure to which Part VIII of the 1980 Act applies) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(2) Where any of the activities specified in paragraph 1 Schedule 12 to this Act is undertaken by or for an authority, then, subject to paragraphs 2 to 5 of that Schedule, the amount of expenditure which,—

(a) by virtue of sections 79A to 80B below, the authority is to be taken to incur on that activity, or
(b) in a case not falling within those sections, the authority actually incurs on that activity,

is prescribed expenditure for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(2) In section 80 of the 1980 Act (which determines the amount of expenditure which is to be taken to be incurred where an interest in or right over property is acquired) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) Where the acquisition is, or is treated by virtue of section 79A above as being, the acquisition of the simple absolute in possession and subsection (3) above does not apply, the amount is the consideration in money which would be obtained for that fee simple if it were sold on the open market by a willing seller at the time of the acquisition; and in determining, for the purpose of calculating that amount, to what interests and rights the fee simple is at that time subject—



(a) where section 79A applies there shall be taken into account only those mentioned in subsection (2) of that section; and
(b) there shall be left out of account those arising by virtue of a mortgage or charge to secure the payment of money."

(3) In subsection (5) of the said section 80 for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(a) the acquisition, though treated by virtue of section 79A above as the acquisition of a fee simple, is in fact the acquisition of a leasehold interest in land; and

(4) In subsection (8) of the said section 80 for the words "right to occupy" there shall be substituted "right to possession or occupation of".

(5) Subsection (14) of the said section 80 shall be omitted.

(6) In section 80A of the 1980 Act (payment for works carried out for an authority) in subsection (5) (value of works at any time) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added "and

(c) the value of any consideration which is not in money and which has been or is to be given by the authority for the carrying out of the works".

(7) In subsection (9) of the said section 80A (works treated as carried out for an authority in cases specified in or determined under regulations) after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "and section 71(2)".

(8) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 10th March 1988.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

SHARE AND LOAN CAPITAL AND GUARANTEE PAYMENTS

`(1) In the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (in this section referred to as "the 1980 Act"), in Schedule 12 (prescribed expenditure under Part VIII), in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (f) the final "and" shall be omitted and at the end of sub-paragraph (g) there shall be added—

"(h) the acquisition of share capital or loan capital (within the meaning of section 78 of the Finance Act 1986) of any body corporate which is not an authority to which this Part of this Act applies, and
(i) the making of payments pursuant to an obligation arising under a guarantee of indemnity given with respect to money borrowed by any person".

(2) At the end of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 12 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
3A. The reference in paragraph 3 above to a county council includes a reference to any district council or other body in whom, by virtue of an order under any provision of Part VII of the Local Government Act 1985, there is for the time being vested a superannuation fund which, before the abolition date, within the meaning of that Act, was maintained by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council as mentioned in section 60 of that Act.

(3) With respect to expenditure on the matters specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 12 (as amended by subsection (1) above), the powers conferred by paragraph 4 of that Schedule (to provide by regulations that certain expenditure which would otherwise be prescribed expenditure shall not be such expenditure) may be exercised so as to have effect with respect to expenditure incurred (or treated by virtue of any provision of Part VIII of the 1980 Act as incurred) on or after 10th March 1988.

(4) In section 75 of the 1980 Act (capital receipts) the power conferred by subsection (5)(d) (to provide that certain assets are brought within the scope of the section) may be exercised with respect to disposals on or after 10 March 1988 of assets acquired on or after that date in cases where, by virtue of the amendments made by subsection (1) above, expenditure on the acquisition of the assets is prescribed expenditure; and, with respect to capital receipts resulting from such disposals, the powers conferred by sections 72(3)(d)

and 75(5)(a) of that Act (which relate to the prescribed proportion of an authority's capital receipts) may be similarly exercised.

(5) In section 80 of the 1980 Act (valuation)—

(a) in subsections (9) and (10) (which relate to the acquisition of the property in goods or an interest or right in goods) after the word "goods", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "share capital or loan capital"; and—
(b) at the end of subsection (15) (definition of "property" for subsections (9) and (10)) there shall be added the words "and loan capital has the same meaning as in section 78 of the Finance Act 1986".

(6) Subsections (1), (2) and (5) above shall be deemed to have come into force on 10 March 1988.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule

`COMMUNITY CHARGES: ENFORCEMENT

PART I

INTRODUCTION

1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to the recovery of—

(a) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 above and has not been paid;
(b) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 3 of that Schedule and has not been paid;
(c) any sum which has become payable to a chargeable person under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 4 of that Schedule and has riot been paid;
(d) any sum which has become payable (by way of repayment) to a person other than an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2 or 3 of that Schedule and has not been paid;
(e) any sum which has become payable (by way of repayment) to a contributor under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 4 of that Schedule and has not been paid;
(f) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 above and has not been paid.

(2) References in sub-paragraph (1) above to a sum which has become payable and has not been paid include references to a sum forming part of a larger sum which has become payable and the other part of which has been paid.

PART II

CHARGES: SOLE LIABILITY

Preliminary

2. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(a) above.

Liability orders

3.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that—

(a) the authority concerned may apply to a magistrates' court for an order (a liability order) against the person by whom the sum is payable;
(b) the magistrates' court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the person concerned and has not been paid.

(2) The regulations may include provision that the order shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable, and
(b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs incurred in obtaining the order.

(3) The regulations may include—

(a) provision that no application may be made after a prescribed period has expired;
(b) provision prescribing the procedure to be followed for the initiation of an application (which may


include provision as to notices and as to form);
(c) provision prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application;
(d) provision prescribing the form and contents of an order.

Information

4.—(l) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor) he shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the charging authority concerned.

(2) Relevant information is such information as fulfils the following conditions—

(a) it is in the debtor's possession or control,
(b) the charging authority requests him to supply it, and
(c) it falls within a prescribed description of information and relates to the debtor's employment and earnings.

(3) The regulations may include provision that the information is to be supplied in a prescribed form and within a prescribed period of the request being made.

Attachment of earnings

5.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor)—

(a) the authority concerned may make an order (an attachment of earnings order) to secure the payment of any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made,
(b) such an order shall be expressed to be directed to a person who has the debtor in his employment, and shall operate as an instruction to such a person to make deductions from the debtor's earnings and to pay the amounts deducted to the authority,
(c) the authority may serve a copy of the order on a person who appears to the authority to have the debtor in his employment, and
(d) a person who has the debtor in his employment shall comply with the order if a copy of it is served on him.

(2) The regulations may include—

(a) provision allowing an attachment of earnings order to be varied;
(b) provision requiring a person who has the debtor in his employment to comply with the order as varied if a copy of the order as varied is served on him;
(c) provision requiring an order to be in a prescribed form;
(d) provision requiring an order to specify the sum to which the order relates, the rate at which the debtor's earnings are to be applied to meet the sum, and such other particulars as may be prescribed;
(e) rules about the rate which may be so specified;
(f) provision allowing the person who deducts and pays amounts under the order to deduct from the debtor's earnings prescribed sums towards his administrative costs;
(g) provision requiring the person who deducts and pays amounts under the order to notify the debtor, in a prescribed manner and at any prescribed time, of the total amount of sums (including sums towards administrative costs) deducted up to the time of the notification;
(h) provision requiring any person on whom a copy of the order is served to notify the authority in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed period if he does not have the debtor in his employment or the debtor subsequently ceases to be in his employment;
(i) provision that, where the whole amount to which the order relates has been paid, the authority shall give notice of that fact to any person who appears to it to have the debtor in his employment and who has been served with a copy of the order;
(j) provision allowing or requiring an order to be discharged.

(3) The regulations may include provision that while an attachment of earnings order is in force—


(a) the debtor shall from time to time notify the authority concerned, in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed period, of each occasion when he leaves any employment or becomes employed or reemployed, and shall include in such a notification a statement of his earnings and expected earnings from the employment concerned and of such other matters as may be prescribed;
(b) any person who becomes the debtor's employer and knows that the order is in force and by what authority it was made shall notify the authority concerned, in a prescribed manner, and within a prescribed period, that he is the debtor's employer, and shall include in such a notification a statement of the debtor's earnings and expected earnings from the employment concerned and of such other matters as may be prescribed.

(4) The regulations may include provision with respect to the priority to be accorded as between—

(a) two or more orders made under the regulations;
(b) orders made under the regulations and orders made under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971.

Distress

6.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor) the authority concerned may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the debtor's goods.

(2) The appropriate amount is the aggregate of—

(a) an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and
(b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the charges connected with the distress.

(3) The regulations may include provision that—

(a) a distress may be made anywhere in England and Wales;
(b) a distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account;
(c) no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise.

Commitment to prison

7.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that —

(a) where an authority has sought to levy an amount by distress under any provision included under paragraph 6 above, the debtor is an individual, and it appears to the authority that no (or insufficient) goods of the debtor can be found on which to levy the amount, the authority may apply to a magistrates' court for the issue of a warrant committing the debtor to prison;
(b) on such application being made the court shall (in the debtor's presence) inquire as to his means and inquire whether the failure to pay which led to the liability order being made was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect
(c) if (and only if) the court is of opinion that his failure was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect it may if it thinks fit issue a warrant of commitment against the debtor, or fix a term of imprisonment and postpone the issue of the warrant until such time and on such conditions (if any) as the court thinks just;
(d) the warrant shall be made in respect of the relevant amount (within the meaning given by sub-paragraph (2) below);
(e) the warrant shall state that amount;
 (f) the order in the warrant shall be that the debtor be imprisoned for a time specified in the warrant (which shall not exceed 3 months), unless the amount stated in the warrant is sooner paid;


(g) the period of imprisonment shall be reduced by a prescribed amount in respect of part payment in prescribed circumstances;
(h) a warrant may be directed to the authority concerned and to such other persons (if any) as the court issuing it thinks fit;
(i) a warrant may be executed anywhere in England and Wales by any person to whom it is directed

(2) The relevant amount is the aggregate of—

(a) an amount equal to the appropriate amount within the meaning of paragraph 6 above or (as the case may be) to so much of it as remains outstanding, and
(b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of the costs of commitment.

(3) The regulations may include—

(a) provision that a single warrant shall not be issued, under any provision included under this paragraph, against more than one person;
(b) provision as to the form of a warrant;
(c) provision allowing remission of payment where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed;
(d) provision allowing an application to be renewed where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed;
(e) provision that a statement in writing to the effect that wages of any amount have been paid to the debtor during any period, purporting to be signed by or on behalf of his employer, shall be evidence of the facts there stated;
(f) provision that, for the purpose of enabling inquiry to he made as to the debtor's conduct and means, a justice of the peace may issue a summons to him to appear before a magistrates' court and (if he does not obey the summons) may issue a warrant for his arrest;
(g) provision that, for the purpose of enabling such inquiry, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant for the debtor's arrest without issuing a summons;
(h) provision as to the execution of a warrant for arrest (which may include provision allowing it to be executed anywhere in England and Wales).

Charging orders

8.—(l) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor), the charge concerned is a collective community charge, and prescribed conditions are fulfilled—

(a) the authority concerned may apply to a court for an order (a charging order) imposing, on any interest held by the debtor beneficially in the designated dwelling concerned, a charge for securing the due amount, and
(b) a charge imposed by a charging order shall have the like effect and shall be enforceable in the same courts and in the same manner as an equitable charge created by the debtor by writing under his hand.

(2) The due amount is the aggregate of—

(a) an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and
(b) a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of costs connected with the charging order.

(3) The regulations may include provision—

(a) as to the court to which an application may be made (which may be the High Court or a county court);
(b) as to the factors to be considered by the court in deciding whether to make a charging order;
(c) requiring an order to specify the dwelling and interest concerned, and such other matters as may be prescribed;
(d) requiring an order to be in a prescribed form;
(e) allowing an order to be made absolutely or subject to conditions;
(f) as to the discharge or variation of an order.

Relationship between remedies

9. As regards a case where a magistrates' court has made a liability order, regulations under this Schedule may include provision that—


(a) attachment of earnings may be resorted to more than once;
(b) distress may be resorted to more than once;
(c) attachment of earnings and distress may be resorted to alternately
(d) steps by way of attachment, distress, commitment or charging may not be taken while steps by way of another of those methods are being taken;
(e) where a warrant of commitment is issued against (or a term of imprisonment is fixed in the case of) the person concerned no steps, or no further steps, by way of attachment, distress or charging may be taken.

Magistrates and justices

10. Regulations under this Schedule may include—

(a) provision for determining what justices and magistrates' courts are to have jurisdiction in cases provided for by the regulations;
(b) provision as to the composition of magistrates' courts in cases provided for by the regulations.

PART III

CHARGES: JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY

11. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(b) above.

12.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may make, as regards the recovery of such a sum, provision equivalent to that included under Part II of this Schedule subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(2) In particular, the regulations may provide that where a sum is payable by a chargeable person and a spouse or manager (as the case may be)—

(a) a liability order may be made against the chargeable person alone, or against that person and the spouse or manager;
(b) a liability order may riot be made against the spouse or manager alone;
(c) where a liability order has been made against both the chargeable person and the spouse or manager, an attachment of earnings order may be made against one of them or different attachment of earnings order may be made against each;
(d) where a liability order has been made against both, distress may be made against one of them or against each;
(e) where distress has been made against each, a warrant of commitment may be applied for against one of them or different warrants may be applied for against each;
(f) where distress has been made against the chargeable person only, a warrant of commitment may be applied for against that person;
(g) where a liability order has been made against both, a charging order may be made against one of them or different charging orders may be made against each.

(3) As regards a case where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a chargeable person and a spouse, the regulations may include provision that a warrant of commitment may not be applied for against the spouse unless distress has been made against the chargeable person and it appears to the authority concerned that no (or insufficient) goods of that person can be found.

(4) As regards a case where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a chargeable person and a spouse or manager, the regulations may include provision that—

(a) steps by way of attachment, distress or charging may not be taken against one while steps by way of the same method or another of those methods are being taken against the other;
(b) where a warrant of commitment is issued against (or a term of imprisonment is fixed in the case of) one of them no steps, or no further steps, by way of attachment, distress or charging may be taken against that one.

(5) In this paragraph "chargeable person", "spouse" and "manager" shall be construed in accordance with sections 16 and 17 above.

PART IV

CONTRIBUTIONS

13. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(c) above.

14. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that any such sum shall be recoverable in the same way as rent or (depending on the terms of the regulations) shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

PART V

REPAYMENTS

15. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(d) or (c) above.

16. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that any such sum shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

PART VI

PENALTIES

17. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(f) above.

18.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may make, as regards the recovery of such a sum, provision equivalent to that included under Part II of this Schedule subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(2) Provision as to penalties incurred under paragraph 2(8) to (11) of Schedule 3 above before I April 1990 may be included in regulations under this Schedule notwithstanding that no liability to pay amounts in respect of community charges arises before that date.

PART VII

GENERAL

Exclusion of certain matters

19. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that any matter which could be the subject of an appeal under section 22 above may not be raised in proceedings under the regulations.

Costs

20. Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a charging authority has received in proceedings under the regulations an amount by way of costs it shall pay an amount (determined in accordance with prescribed rules) to a prescribed person for the benefit of such court as is identified in accordance with prescribed rules.

Termination of proceedings

21.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that in a case where—

(a) proceedings under the regulations have been taken as regards the recovery of any sum mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above, and
(b) the outstanding amount is paid or tendered to the person to whom it is payable,

that person shall accept the amount, no further steps shall be taken as regards its recovery, and any person committed to prison in pursuance of the proceedings shall be released.

(2) The outstanding amount is an amount equal to the sum concerned or to so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be).

(3) In a case where costs and charges are relevant the outstanding amount shall be treated as augmented by a sum (of an amount determined in accordance with prescribed rules) in respect of costs and charges incurred in the proceedings up to the time of payment or tender.

Offences

22.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he is required by any provision included under paragraph 4 above to supply information and—

(a) he fails without reasonable excuse to supply the information in accordance with the provision, or
(b) in supplying information in purported compliance with the provision he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.

(2) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that—

(a) a person shall be guilty of an offence if he is required by any provision included under paragraph 5(1)(d) or (2)(b) above to comply with an attachment of earnings order and fails to do so;

(b) it shall be a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps to comply with the order.

(3) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he is required by any provision included under paragraph 5(2)(g) or (h) or (3)(a) or (b) above to notify another person and

(a) he fails without reasonable excuse to notify the other person in accordance with the provision, or
(b) in notifying the other person in purported compliance with the provision he makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.

(4) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that a person guilty of an offence under any provision included under sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding—

(a) level 2 on the standard scale (where the provision is included under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (3)(a) above), or
(b) level 3 on the standard scale (where the provision is included under sub-paragraph (1)(b), (2) or (3)(b) above).

(5) References in this paragraph to any provision included under paragraph 4 or 5 above include references to any equivalent provision included under paragraph 12 or 18 above.

Other enactments

23.—(l) Regulations under this Schedule may apply any provision contained in or made under a relevant enactment, or may apply any such provision subject to prescribed modifications, or may contain provision equivalent to any such provision (whether or not subject to prescribed modifications).

(2) Relevant enactments are Part VI of the General Rate Act 1967, the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, the Charging Orders Act 1979, and any enactment applied by any of those enactments.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule

SOCIAL SECURITY

1. The Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as mentioned in the following provisions of this Schedule.

2.—(1) Section 20 (income-related benefits) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Subsection (1) the word "and" shall be omitted and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted "and
(d) community charge benefits.

(3) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
(8A) A person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a particular day falling after 31 March 1990 if each of the three conditions set out in subsections (8B) to (8E) below is fulfilled.
(8B) In relation to England and Wales, the first condition is that—

(a) on the day the person concerned is shown, in a charging authority's community charges register, as subject to a personal community charge of the authority and is not there shown as undertaking a full-time course of education on the day, or
(b) the day consists of or falls within a contribution period in respect of which the person concernd is liable to pay an amount under section 9 of the 1988 Act (collective community charge contributions).

(8C) In relation to Scotland, the first condition is that—

(a) in respect of the day the person concerned is shown, in a Community Charges Register, as being liable to pay the personal community charge and is not there shown as undertaking a full-time course of education on the day, or
(b) the day consists of or falls within a contribution period in respect of which the


person concerned is liable to pay a collective community charge contribution under section 11(11) of the 1987 Act.

(8D) The second condition is that there is an appropriate maximum community charge benefit in the case of the person concerned.—
(8E) The third condition is that—

(a) the person concerned has no income in respect of the day,
(b) his income in respect of the day does not exceed the applicable amount, or
(c) his income in respect of the day exceeds that amount but does not exceed the second applicable amount.

(8F) In respect of the same day, a person shall be entitled to a separate community charge benefit in respect of each charge or contribution period concerned (if more than one).
(8G) But regulations may provide that if—

(a) a person would (apart from the regulations) be entitled, in respect of the same day, to separate community charge benefits, and
(b) the circumstances are such as are prescribed.

he shall not be entitled to such one or more of the benefits as may be identified in accordance with prescribed rules.

(4) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
(9A) Subsection (9) above does not prevent different members of the same family becoming entitled to different community charge benefits by virtue of their fulfilling the conditions in respect of different charges or of different contribution periods

(5) In subsection (11)—

(a) before the definition of child there shall be inserted—

"chargeable financial year" has the same as in the 1988 Act;
"charging authority" has the same meaning as in the 1988 Act;"

(b) after the definition of child there shall be inserted—

"contribution period", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 9 of the 1988 Act;
"contribution period", in relation to Scotland, means a continuous period of residence in any premises (which falls in a chargeable financial year) in respect of each day of which a person is liable to pay a collective community charge contribution under section 11(11) of the 1987 Act;"

(c) after the definition of family there shall be inserted—

"levying authority" has the same meaning as in the 1987 Act;"

(d) after the definition of married couple there shall be inserted—

"the 1987 Act" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987;
"the 1988 Act" means the Local Government Finance Act 1988."

3.—(1) Section 21 (amount of entitlement) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—

"(5A) Where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a day, and section 20(8E)(a) or (b) above applies, the amount to which he is entitled shall be the amount which is the appropriate maximum community charge benefit in his case.
(5B) Where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a day, and section 20(8E)(c) above applies, the amount to which he is entitled shall be found by deducting amount B from amount A, where—

(a) amount A is the appropriate maximum community charge benefit in his case, and
(b) amount B is a prescribed percentage of the difference between the applicable amount and the income of the person concerned in respect of the day.

(5C) Subsection (5D) below applies where—

(a) a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a day,

(b) on the day the conditions in section 63(1)(a) and (b) of the 1988 Act or the conditions in section 67(1)(a) and (b) of that Act (residual rating) are fulfilled as regards a hereditament.
(c) the person entitled to the benefit is the same person as the ratepayer referred to in section 63(1)(b) or 67(1)(b) of that Act (as the case may be), and
(d) the circumstances are such as are prescribed.

(5D) In such a case—

(a) neither subsection (4) nor subsection (5) above shall apply for the purpose of finding the amount of any prescribed housing benefit which takes the form of a rate rebate and to which he is entitled in respect of any payments by way of the residual rate concerned,
(b) neither subsection (5A) nor subsection (5B) above shall apply for the purpose of finding the amount of the community charge benefit,
(c) the aggregate amount of any such housing benefit and the community charge benefit shall be such as is prescribed,
(d) the amount of any such housing benefit shall be such proportion of that aggregate amount as is prescribed, and
(e) the amount of the community charge benefit shall be such proportion of that aggregate amount as is prescribed."

(3) In subsection (6) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
(c) the appropriate maximum community charge benefit,

4.—(l) Section 22 (calculation) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) for "arid housing benefit" there shall be substituted ", housing benefit and any community charge benefit".

(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A) The second applicable amount shall be such amount or the aggregate of such amounts as may be prescribed.

5. The following shall be inserted after section 22—

COUPLES

22A.—(1) As regards any case where a person is a member of a married or unmarried couple throughout a particular day, regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State sees fit as to—

(a) the entitlement of the person to a community charge benefit in respect of the day, and
(b) the amount to which he is entitled.

(2) Nothing in subsections (3) to (8) below shall prejudice the generality of subsection (1) above.

(3) The regulations may provide that prescribed provisions shall apply instead of prescribed provisions of this Part, or that prescribed provisions of this Part shall not apply or shall apply subject to prescribed amendments or adaptations.

(4) The regulations may provide that, for the purpose of calculating in the case of the person concerned the matters mentioned in subsection (5) below, prescribed amounts relating to the person and his partner are to be aggregated and the aggregate is to be apportioned.

(5) The matters are income, capital, the applicable amount, the second applicable amount, and the appropriate maximum community charge benefit.

(6) Where the regulations contain provision replacing section 21(5C) and 5(d) above as regards a case where the person entitled to a community charge benefit is a member of a married or unmarried couple, the regulations may include—

(a) provision as to any relevant housing benefit to which the person concerned is entitled (as well as provision as to any community charge benefit to which he is entitled);
(b) provision as to any community charge benefit or relevant housing benefit to which his partner is entitled.

(7) The regulations may—



(a) amend section 31B(5) below so as to allow for disregarding the whole or part of any pension payable to the partner of the person concerned in determining the latter's income;
(b) amend section 31B(6) below accordingly.

(8) The regulations may contain different provision as to the following different cases—

(a) cases where the first condition is fulfilled on the day concerned by the person concerned but not by his partner;
(b) cases where the first condition is fulfilled on the day concerned by the person concerned and by his partner.

(9) The regulations may include such sup-plementary, incidental or consequential provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(10) In this section—

(a) references to a person's partner are to the other member of the couple concerned,
(b) references to relevant housing benefit, in relation to a person, are to prescribed housing benefit which takes the form of a rate rebate and to which he is entitled in respect of any payments by way of the residual rate concerned, and
(c) references to the first condition are to the condition mentioned in section 20(8B) or (8C) above (as the case may be)."

6. The following shall be inserted after section 31—

Community charge benefits

NATURE OF BENEFITS

31A.—(1) In relation to England and Wales, regulations shall provide that where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a charging authority's personal community charge the benefit shall take such of the following forms as is prescribed in the case of the person—

(a) a payment or payments by the authority to the person;
(b) a reduction in the amount the person is liable to pay to the authority in respect of the charge as it has effect for the relevant chargeable financial year;
(c) both such payment or payments and such reduction.

(2) In relation to Scotland, regulations shall provide that where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a personal community charge determined by a regional, islands or district council the benefit shall take such of the following forms as is prescribed in the case of a person—

(a) a payment or payments to the person by the levying authority to which the charge is payable;
(b) a reduction in the amount the person is liable to pay in respect of the charge as it has effect for the relevant chargeable financial year;
(c) both such payment or payments and such reduction.

(3) Regulations shall provide that where a person is entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a contribution period the benefit shall take such of the following forms as is prescribed in the case of the person—

(a) a payment or payments by the relevant authority to the person;
(b) the reductions mentioned in subsection (4) below;
(c) both such payment or payments and such reductions.

(4) The reductions are—

(a) a reduction in the amount the person is liable to pay to the charge payer in respect of the contribution period, and
(b) a consequential reduction in the amount the charge payer is liable to pay in respect of the charge concerned as it has effect for the relevant chargeable financial year.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above the relevant chargeable financial year is the chargeable financial year in which the relevant day falls; and the relevant day is the day in respect of which the person concerned is entitled to the benefit.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the relevant authority is—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the authority to which an amount is payable in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the levying authority to which the collective community charge is payable.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the charge payer is

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the person who is liable to pay an amount in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the person who is liable to pay the collective community charge under section 11(5) of the 1987 Act.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the relevant chargeable financial year is the chargeable financial year in which the contribution period falls.

(9) Regulations under subsection (1), (2) or (3) above may include such supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient; and such provisions may include provisions amending or adapting provisions of the 1987 Act or the 1988 Act.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR BENEFITS

31B.—(1) Any community charge benefit provided for by virtue of a scheme under section 20(1) above (in this Act referred to as a community charge benefit scheme) is to be administered by the appropriate authority.

(2) For the purposes of this section the appropriate authority in relation to a particular benefit is—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the charging authority as regards whose personal or collective community charge a person is entitled to the benefit;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the levying authority to which the personal or collective community charge is payable by a person entitled to the benefit.

(3) Charging authorities may agree that one shall carry out responsibilities relating to community charge benefits on another's behalf.

(4) Levying authorities may agree that one shall carry out responsibilities relating to community charge benefits on another's behalf.

(5) A charging authority or levying authority may modify any part of the community charge benefit scheme administered by the authority—

(a) so as to provide for disregarding, in determining a person's income, the whole or part of any war widow's pension payable to that person;
(b) to such extent in other respects as may be prescribed,

and any such modifications may be adopted by resolution of an authority.

(6) Modifications other than such modifications as are mentioned in subsection (5)(a) above shall be so framed as to secure that, in the estimate of the authority adopting them, the total of the benefits which will be allowed by the authority for any year will not exceed the permitted total of benefits for that year.

(7) An authority which has adopted modifications may by resolution revoke or vary them.

(8) If the community charge benefit scheme includes power for an authority to exercise a discretion in allowing community charge benefits, the authority shall not exercise that discretion so that the total of the benefits allowed by it for any year exceeds the permitted total of benefits for that year.

(9) In relation to any authority the permitted total of benefits for any year shall be such amount as is calculated in accordance with rules contained in an order made by the Secretary of State.

ADJUDICATION

31C.—(1) Regulations shall provide that, where a person has claimed a community charge benefit as regards—

(a) a person or collective community charge of a charging authority, or
(b) a personal or collective community charge payable to a levying authority,

the authority shall notify the person of its determination of the claim.

(2) Any such notification shall be given in such form as may be prescribed.

(3) Regulations shall make provision for reviews of determinations relating to community charge benefits.

EXCESS BENEFITS

31D.—(1) Regulations may make provision as to any case where a charging authority or a levying authority has allowed a community charge benefit to a person and the amount allowed exceeds the amount to which he is entitled in respect of the benefit.

(2) As regards any prescribed case where the benefit is in respect of a personal community charge the regulations may provide that

(a) a sum equal to the excess shall be due from the person concerned to the authority (whatever the form the benefit takes);
(b) any liability under any provision included under paragraph (a) above shall be met by such method mentioned in subsection (3) below as is prescribed as regards the case concerned, or by such combination of two or all three of the methods as is prescribed as regards the case concerned.

(3) The methods are—

(a) payments by the person concerned;
(b) addition to any amount payable in respect of the charge concerned;
(c) deduction from any other income-related benefit which he may be allowed by the authority concerned.

(4) As regards any prescribed case where the benefit is in respect of a contribution period the regulations may provide that—

(a) a sum equal to the excess shall be due from the person concerned to the authority (whatever the form the benefit takes);
(b) any liability under any provision included under paragraph (a) above shall be met by such method mentioned in subsection (5) below as is prescribed as regards the case concerned, or by such combination of the methods as is prescribed as regards the case concerned;
(c) there is to be no adjustment as between the person concerned and the charge payer, or as between the charge payer and the authority concerned.

(5) The methods are—

(a) payment by the person concerned;
(b) deduction from any other income-related benefit which he may be allowed by the authority concerned.

(6) In a case where the regulations provide that a sum or part of a sum is to be paid, and the sum or part is not paid on or before such day as may be prescribed, the regulations may provide that the sum or part shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (4) above the charge payer is—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the person who is liable to pay an amount in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the person who is liable to pay the collective community charge under section 11(5) of the 1987 Act.

SHORTFALL IN BENEFITS.

31E. (1) Regulations may make provision as to any case

where a charging authority or a levying authority has allowed a community charge benefit to a person and the amount allowed is less than the amount to which he is entitled in respect of the benefit.

(2) In particular, as regards any prescribed case where the benefit is in respect of a contribution period the regulations may provide that—

(a) a sum equal to the difference shall be due from the authority to the person concerned;
(b) any liability under any provision included under paragraph (a) above shall be met by payment and not by such reductions as are mentioned in section 31A(4) above (whatever the form the benefit actually allowed takes);
(c) there is to be no adjustment as between the person concerned and the charge payer, or as between the charge payer and the authority concerned.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the charge payer is—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the person who is liable to pay an amount in respect of the collective community charge concerned under section 15 of the 1988 Act;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the person who is liable to pay the collective community charge under section 11(5) of the 1987 Act

COMMUNITY CHARGE BENEFIT FINANCE.

31F.—(1) For each year the Secretary of State shall pay a subsidy (to be known as community charge benefit subsidy) to each charging authority and to each levying authority.

(2) The amount of community charge benefit subsidy to be paid to a charging authority or a levying authority for a year shall be calculated in such manner as may be specified by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(3) Any such order shall require the calculation to be made by reference to an amount found by—

(a) taking the total amount allowed by the authority for the year by way of community charge benefits, and
(b) adjusting that total by making such additions or subtractions (or both) as are specified in the order.

(4) The Secretary of State may deduct, from the amount which would (apart from this subsection) be payable to a charging or levying authority by way of community charge benefit subsidy for a year, such amount as he considers it unreasonable to pay by way of such subsidy.

(5) The Secretary of State may pay to an authority, as part of the amount of community charge benefit subsidy payable to the authority for a year, an additional sum in respect of the costs of administering community charge benefits; and any such additional sum shall be calculated in a manner specified by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Subsidy under this section shall be payable by the Secretary of State at such time and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, but subject—

(a) to the making of a claim for it in such form and containing such particulars as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine; and
(b) to such conditions as to records, certificates, audit or otherwise as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, impose.

(7) The amount of any subsidy payable to an authority shall be calculated to the nearest pound, by disregarding an odd amount of 50 pence or less and by treating an odd amount exceeding 50 pence as a whole pound.

INFORMATION.

31G.—(1) The Secretary of State may supply to charging authorities and levying authorities such information of a prescribed description obtained by reason of the exercise of any of his functions under the


benefit Acts as they may require in connection with any of their functions relating to community charge benefits.

(2) Charging authorities and levying authorities shall supply to the Secretary of State such information of a prescribed description obtained by reason of the exercise of their functions relating to community charge benefits as he may require in connection with any of his functions under the benefit Acts.

(3) It shall also be the duty of each charging authority and of each levying authority to supply the Secretary of State, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time—

(a) with such information as he may require concerning its performance of any of its functions relating to community charge benefits; and
(b) with such information as he may require to enable him to prepare estimates of likely future amounts of community charge benefit subsidy.

(4) Each charging authority shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of securing that any person who may be entitled to a community charge benefit as regards a personal or collective community charge of the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it.

(5) Each levying authority shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of securing that any person who may be entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a personal community charge payable to the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it.

(6) Each charging authority and each levying authority shall make copies of the community charge benefit scheme, with any modifications adopted by it under section 31B above, available for public inspection at its principal office at all reasonable hours without payment."

7. In section 51 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit) in subsection (2) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
(ee) community charge benefits;".

8.—(1) Section 56 (legal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a) and (b) after "housing benefit" there shall be inserted "or community charge benefits".

(3) In subsection (4) for "concerning" there shall be substituted "which relates to housing benefit and concerns".

(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A) In subsections (2) and (3) above "the appropriate authority" means, in relation to an offence relating to community charge benefits, such authority as is prescribed in relation to the offence.

(5) In subsection (5) for "(4)" there shall be substituted "(4A)".

9. In subsection 61 (consultations on subordinate legislation) after paragraph (b) of subsection (7) there shall be inserted—

"(c) regulations relating to community charge benefits (other than regulations of which the effect is to increase any amount specified in regulations previously made);
(d) an order under section 31B(9) or 31F above,".

10. In section 63 (annual up-rating of benefits) in subsection (1)(i) after "22(1)" there shall be inserted "or (4A)".

11.—(1) Section 83 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) after "housing benefit" there shall be inserted " or community charge benefits".

(3) In subsection (3) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—

"(cc) regulations under Part II of this Act which relate to community charge benefits and are made before 1 April 1990;
(ccc) orders under section 31F(2) or (5) above which are made before 1 April 1990;

(4) In subsection (5) after "30" there shall be inserted ",31F". 12. In section 85 (financial provision) in subsection (1)(a) after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted—

"(vi) community charge benefit subsidy;".'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment made: No 42, in title, line 6, after 'about', insert 'the capital expenditure and'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
Our debates have been long, but conducted with good nature and courtesy. I thank the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for that. The details of the Bill have stood up to examination remarkably well, although there are a number of improvements that we have undertaken to make. The principle of the Bill has been challenged repeatedly, but no superior alternative has been found.
The policies of the Opposition parties—local income tax for the remnants of the alliance and their ex-friends, and local income tax plus capital value rates for the Labour party—have been shown to be fatally flawed and unworkable, so much so that both Opposition parties have tried to avoid discussing them, let alone pressing them, throughout our entire debates. That has made their opposition "vacuous"—in the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He said:
Simply to oppose is a sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise".
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He started the debates "naked", and is now accused by his deputy leader of ending them "vacuous". He has done a good job on the bill and he deserves better than that, especially from his own party.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
The debate came to life last Monday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) advanced a possible solution that, he argued, combined the advantages of a flat rate charge with his desire for the better off to contribute more. At least that was a positive alternative—unlike anything offered by the Labour party. In fact, his scheme combined the disadvantages of a step system with near unworkability without meeting the egalitarian instincts of the Labour party, although it supported him against its better judgment, as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, in a cyncial attempt to stop the Bill.
The fact is that all the many alternatives we have considered—banded community charges, local income tax, capital value rates, and my hon. Friend's proposal for a three-band community charge—have been shown to have fatal flaws, because it is in principle thoroughly undesirable, and costly and complicated in practice, to have a progressive element in the raising of revenue locally. That is why we suggest that only a quarter of local revenue should be raised locally. That enables us to overcome the practical problems of a progressive local system, by providing for half of local spending through the national tax system, which is progressive.
Some of my hon. Friends would go further, and provide more from the Exchequer, to reduce the size of the


community charge bill. The Bill enables us to take that decision when we come to it, which is not now. I should point out that the great advantage of this system is that, whatever level of Exchequer grant is chosen, the principle of accountability is still preserved, because extra spending above assessed need will always be paid by the community charge payer and be comparable between different authorities. So, for example, if the grant was set so that at last year's spending the community charge for spending at GRE was, say, £100 rather than £178, there would still be the same disparities between London and Rochester, because of the profligacy of the one and the prudence of the other, though the community charge in both cases would be lower. That is not the case with rates, where we have attempted in the past to bring home the costs of local government spending to voters by reducing the grant total and altering the mechanisms by which it is paid. That is an attempt which has not been entirely successful, because of' the lack of accountability inherent in the rate system.
That reinforces the point that the progressive contribution to local spending must come from national taxation. I think that we have the split between local and national contributions about right. However, we can judge every year the proportion which we think is right to levy from progressive taxation when we set the level of Exchequer grant.
We have related our proposals to ability to pay. The new improved rebate system gives strong protection to the less well off. It has been shown to leave no one with an unfair burden, while still asking virtually everyone to make at least a small contribution to their council's spending, in the interest of accountability.
The new system of local government finance will usher in a new era—a new attitude in local government. The relationship between councils and their electors will change to one where every council has to concentrate on local rather than national issues, on providing value for money in the services they provide and on serving their customers as their first priority. That will be a great improvement for many authorities controlled by Opposition parties—high time, too. I believe that in time the community charge will come to be seen as a watershed in terms of the strengthening of local democracy.
I make no judgment about what another place may or may not do in relation to the Bill. However, I do believe that I am entitled to observe that the proposal has been endorsed at a general election, and I quote the relevant passage in our 1987 manifesto:
We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community-Charge.
This will be a fixed rate charge for local services paid by those over the age of 18, except for the mentally ill and elderly people living in homes and hospitals. The less-well-off and students will not have to pay the full charge—but everyone will be aware of the costs as well as the benefits of the local services. This should encourage people to take a greater interest in the policies of their local council and getting value for money.
That is the end of the quotation from our manifesto, which spelt out in great detail what we propose to do.

Mr. Wilson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ridley: I will not give way, because I want to give a lot of hon. Gentlemen an opportunity to speak. I will refrain from giving way.
The policy has since been endorsed in a Second Reading debate in the House lasting two days, a Committee stage of 147 hours, and a Report stage of five days. That included a memorable debate on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East when I believe the House, with a perfectly respectable majority, took a clear decision to align the system of local government finance with the reality of a society where prosperity is even more widely spread and in which most people can afford a reasonable, flat rate charge and, collectively, they can afford generous help for the less well off. I am sure their Lordships will bear all these points in mind when they come to discuss the Bill.
I thank my Minister of State, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my officials and all our many supporters for the immense efforts they have all made to get us to this historic point. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. Cunningham: I join the Secretary of State in expressing thanks for the continued courtesy with which these contemptuous, not to say outrageous, matters have been discussed. He could have added that they had been discussed with considerable humour, although not always intentionally, as I gather from some of the things that he has said.
This must be the worst Bill to be introduced by any Government in this country this century. Its provisions are deeply and manifestly unfair. We remain fundamentally and vehemently opposed to it. After four months of discussion and debate, the proposals are worse than at the outset. Fundamental questions remain unanswered, for example, the real level of the tax burden that is to be imposed. We do not know how the rebate scheme will operate or who will benefit. The Government cannot explain how their new business tax will be introduced. We do not know how the new local authority grants system will operate in practice.
However, we do know that the British people now bitterly oppose the whole idea. We know that all British local government associations remain implacably opposed to the idea of the poll tax. We know that the Government's policy on the poll tax has been widely condemned in the British press. A leader in The Times on 20 April was highly critical. In a leader on 21 April, The Daily Telegraph called upon the Government, "to think again."
In a leading article on 20 April, The Independent stated that the Prime Minister should,
pluck up courage and admit that when she and her colleagues committed themselves to the poll tax, they made a mistake.
The Guardian described the poll tax as "a stricken flagship".—[Interruption.] Apparently, all that counts for nothing in a democracy. The Economist called upon the Government to "scrap" the poll tax. In an editorial criticising the proposal, The Observer stated:
Thatcher has lost poll tax argument".
Perhaps surprisingly, and most witheringly of all, The Mail on Sunday gave the Government,
Nought out of three for the poll tax targets".
It is rumoured that it gave the Secretary of State nought out of three because it did not think that he could count any higher than that. The same leader then stated:


Today, as the Government stumbles from ridicule to rebellion over the plan, it has achieved none of its primary objectives … The best solution for the Government is to cut its losses and plump, albeit through gritted teeth, for a progressive tax based as much on the ability to pay as on demand for services.
The General Synod of the Church of England has also —[Interruption.] Oh, yes, the General Synod has also condemned the proposals,
believing that a flat-rate community charge is inherently unjust and fails to take sufficient account of ability to pay".
However, apparently all that condemnation counts for nothing—the Government plough on.
The Tory Reform Group did not have a kind word to say for the poll tax. The Financial Times called it, "The wilting poll tax", stating:
The poll tax will never be the right solution to the complex problems of British local government finance. It will never, for this reason, be popular.
It has been interesting to reflect on the wrigglings and writhings of Ministers in the face of all that. The Home Secretary went to his Witney constituency and the local paper the Oxford Times stated:
Hurd says system is the fairest".
However, unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, on the same day, the front page of the same newspaper reported the mayor of the Tory Burford council in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as stating,
Poll tax will 'double rates bills'
That is the kind of confusion and disarray that exists in Government circles, the Conservative party and the country.
On Second Reading I pointed out that there were 344 places where matters were left for orders, ministerial decision or for a decision to be announced. By the end of the Committee stage there were 409 such instances and after one week on Report the total has risen incredibly to 649 such instances where no answer is available and it is left to ministerial discretion, orders or some other system yet to be announced or introduced in the House.
At least we have one achievement. On Tuesday 19 April the Secretary of State went on the BBC's "Today" programme and finally conceded that what we were talking about was not a community charge, but a tax. He said:
is this tax too harsh on the least well off.
He went on to describe it later in the broadcast—I am quoting from the transcript—as follows:
And, as you see in the national press the Poll Tax has not apparently affected the rating of the Party in the country.
The Secretary of State had better tell that to his right hon. and hon. Friends as they go about their business, working for the party in the local elections in the next few weeks.
The Prime Minister foolishly described the Bill as her flagship. It staggered off the stocks in December with almost all the officer class absent from the bridge. It sailed on in confusion through troubled waters and ran on to the rocks last Monday. I do not know why the Secretary of State thinks that the House of Lords will not ask some searching questions about his Bill. It certainly could not be described in any sense as a glittering, gleaming flagship now; it is more like a dirty Tory tramp steamer staggering along from problem to problem. Every time a serious argument arises, a few more of the crew jump ship and

disappear without trace. Every day last week and yet again today we have seen more and more deserters from the cause. It is not so much a flagship; more a Moby Nick.
There is no willing majority for this awful mess. There is no honest majority for it either, as Conservative Members realise. It does not deserve to move an inch further.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call hon. Members from the Back Benches, I remind the House that this is a short debate and I ask for brief speeches.

Mr. W. Benyon: As we near the end of this great marathon I have a terrible feeling of foreboding. I have opposed the measure from the word go. I said so in my election address; I voted against it on Second Reading; I voted for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates); and I shall vote against the Bill again tonight.
I was surprised that the Opposition turned out in such force to vote for the amendment last Monday. I thought that some of the troops would be unavoidably absent because, like the Israelites finding manna in the wilderness, they could not believe their good fortune. Oppositions do not win elections; Governments lose them. For 18 months to two years before the next election the demands for this Tory tax will be fluttering on to 10 million doormats. It will not be a paper reminder; there will be visits from council officers.
Anybody who read The Observer yesterday will know what I am talking about. What brave people they are, asking about Aunt Nellie, young Jim and all the rest of them. From now on there will be a spate of cartoons, jokes and bitter comment.
All that can save us is the ineptitude of the Opposition —I suppose that we can count on that. The only other alternative would be for the Government to remove some of the burden on local authorities and therefore reduce the incidence of the tax.
My hon. Friends are all experienced canvassers and their efforts during the previous election campaign played a large part in the result. What reaction do they expect on the doorsteps in two years' time? Obviously there will be winners and they will approve, but I suspect that their approval will be muted. There will also be vehement opposition from the losers. But surely what there will not be is any acceptance that the local council is responsible for its position. Councils will blame the Government, as indeed they now blame the Government, for the rates.
No other Government in the western world have tried a poll tax. Some have thought about it, but they have all rejected it. I ask my hon. Friends, would Disraeli have introduced such a tax? Would Salisbury, Bonar-Law, Baldwin, Churchill or Eden have introduced such a tax? The answer must be no. It is against the tradition of our party. It is a new Conservativism. It may be new, but it is certainly not Conservative.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: At the start of the final debate on the Tory tax—the poll tax—the Secretary of State prefaced his remarks by saying that the Bill had stood up remarkably well to examination in this House. A majority


of 25 for the showpiece of the Government is remarkable. I am not entirely sure that that is the type of remarkable event that the Secretary of State wanted his flagship to enjoy.
As the Bill has passed through the House we have, as in so many cases, seen a bad Bill get worse. Almost all the anomalies that appeared in the Bill are still there. It is still discriminating against those becoming mentally ill, it is still discriminating against student nurses. It is still penalising medical students and remand prisoners. It is still hurting those least able to stand up for themselves and least able to defend themselves against the tax. Worse still, the Government have surpassed themselves in their ability to make bad things worse because they have introduced measures to ensure that even the homeless—the dossers —will not escape the tax. They have introduced imprisonment as the penalty for those who cannot pay. They have instigated yet more expenditure controls on local authorities unable, even now, to provide a decent service for those within their authority.
As to the only possible improvement that the Government tried to give us—the changes in the withdrawal on rebates—the truth will out. The Government wanted to take back what they had given by the back door while presenting that change to their Back Benchers at the front door and asking for their support.
The Secretary of State says that there is no alternative that can work. His measure, however, is not supported by any other country. Even those countries that still have a poll tax are withdrawing it, whereas the local income tax is present in country after country—it is made to work in those countries.
The Minister for Local Government should consider how he will explain to student nurses in Shepway why they would save 34 per cent. under our local income tax scheme in comparison with the Secretary of State's proposals. In the constituency of the Minister for Local Government, student nurses would save 36 per cent. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) kept jumping up and down and telling us about student nurses. He should bear in mind that, under our scheme, student nurses would save 27 per cent. in his constituency.
There are alternatives to the poll tax—we have heard of such alternatives from Conservative Back Benchers. Those alternatives have been put forward for various measures. With vote after rebellious vote the flagship has sunk deeper into the water.
The truth is that the Secretary of State cannot defend his proposals. He has to twist arms, using the Whips Office, and offices in the constituencies of Conservative Members, who are too honourable to permit the passing of the Bill without protest. I hope that at the end of the debate those hon. Members will show their honour once again by fighting this proposed Tory tax. They would be doing a service, because, if nothing else, this will be a one-Government tax. It will not just be thrown away as soon as another party comes into Government. It will be thrown away and recognised as a failure as soon as the Prime Minister changes, whatever party he or she may represent.
That shows the lack of support for the Bill, and Conservative Members know it. There have been no cheers for the Secretary of State, no smiles, and no pleasure in its passing. There is only fear on the Conservative Benches, because they know the havoc that it will wreak in the local elections and the general election to come.

Sir David Price: I should tell the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that I am joining ship at this point. As I have not yet spoken on the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words before we say au revoir to the Bill. It certainly will not be adieu.
I have long been a critic of the domestic rating system, and I have spoken on the subject in the House many times. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has produced a Bill to abolish the domestic rating system, and we should not pass the Bill without noting that. In saying goodbye to the domestic rates, let us remember that they are unfair, overcomplex, out-of-date and deeply resented by many of the people who pay them. Let us also remember that, if we continued the domestic rating system, there would have to be a revaluation——

Mr. Maxton: We have had one.

Sir David Price: I know. The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent comment. What happened in Scotland shows exactly what would happen if we had it in England and Wales—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members had been in government, they would have taken the kicks for that revaluation. Any Government in power would take the kicks after such a revaluation.
It does not follow that a substitute local tax would be automatically superior to the domestic rates. It appears from our debates that not all my colleagues are entirely over the moon with the new community charge. However, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have not heard a superior solution offered during our debates.
We should also remember that it is no good advancing theoretical options that are administratively impossible to run. Nor is it any good to put forward proposals on taxes that are already pre-empted by national taxes. I think especially of a local sales tax. What my right hon. Friend has proposed in the Bill is a reasonable alternative to the domestic rate, provided that it is retained at the levels currently suggested for the shire counties. The knowledge that the charge is expected to produce only a quarter of local government revenue is a safeguard against its getting out of hand, but it always remains open to the Government to increase the taxpayers' contribution. That should be a great comfort to those who are doubtful about the future level of charges.
Furthermore—it is sufficient for my purposes to note the possibility, and it was confirmed by my right hon. Friend in his speech on Third Reading—the Bill provides a secure escape route for those who doubt whether the charge will be held at the present proposed level. It is also important to note that, should new duties of national importance be placed on local authorities by the Government or by Parliament, specific grants should be given to cover them. I have in mind in particular the current proposal by Sir Roy Griffiths that care in the community should move to local authorities.
With those two reservations, I shall be very content to vote for Third Reading.

Mr. Terry Davis: This Bill is not about accountability but about redistribution—the redistribution of taxation and therefore of income and wealth. The Bill's real objective is to shift the cost of local government from the


people with the highest incomes, living in the biggest and most expensive houses, to people with average and below average incomes, living in flats, bungalows, terraced houses and, many families living in typical three-bedroomed semi-detached houses—owner-occupiers and council tenants alike. The people of this country reject this Tory tax, and that is one of the reasons why they will reject this Tory Government.

Mr. Robin Squire: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and, given that there was little change in Committee, it will come as little surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends if my vote remains the same on Third Reading.
I bitterly regret the fact that, as a result of property revaluation in Scotland, my party has been bounced into arguably the worst solution of all in local government finance. I have asked my hon. Friends to raise their eyes to other countries. If one does that, one sees three options: a tax on property, a tax on individuals, based on income, or a level charge across the board. I have no doubt that the last is the worst option. My biggest regret as someone who for a number of years has followed the whole question of local authority funding and how to achieve a better system is that tonight we are probably postponing a long-term solution. My real fear is that in a few years' time a Government—frankly, it could be under either of the major political parties—will come back to the House because the proposals will have been found to be unworkable in many ways, and exorbitantly expensive.
It is with a heavy heart that I announce that I shall not be supporting the Bill tonight.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Patently, the Bill does not have the wholehearted consent of the House of Commons. It does not have majority support in Wales, any more than its predecessor had majority support in Scotland, and many Conservative Members must be praying that the House of Lords will let the House of Commons off the hook.
The Bill is inherently unfair, in charging the millionaire and those on relatively low incomes the same for local government services. What is proposed is an inefficient way of collecting money; the Bill will double the cost of collecting charges for the local exchequer.
The imposition that the Bill will place on small businesses will not only be a burden on those businesses; it will make a travesty of regional policy and make impossible any meaningful approach to regeneration in areas away from the south-east of England.
The Government's failure to introduce proposals to safeguard the position of community councils will be felt in Wales, and parish councils will suffer in England. The Government should be ashamed of their failure to ensure a coherent policy for care in the community, with the result that people with mental handicaps will find themselves better off in institutional care than at home in the community.
It became clear in an earlier debate that the real danger is that the Government will be looking for ways of offloading charges from local government. In the end, the

most likely candidate for transfer from the county councils to the central Exchequer will be education, or at least the cost of teachers—another step towards the centralisation of services.
I appeal to Conservative Members who have the courage of their convictions to vote against this iniquitous tax.

Mr. Tony Baldry: No one will seriously mourn the passing of the present domestic rating system. It is riddled with anomalies and unfairness. It gives every incentive for local councils to be profligate and to write cheques on other people's bank accounts. It gives no real incentive for local councils to be prudent, as they have little accountability to those whose money they spend, often with gay abandon.
The arguments against the present rating system are legion. Nothing kills off more quickly than the prospect of revaluation any lingering idea of retaining the existing rating system rather than opting for something new. We could not carry on with the existing system without a revaluation, since the last revaluation was in 1973. A revaluation now after 14 years would inevitably lead to massive disruption for ratepayers.
The community charge has many advantages. It is straightforward, nearly every adult over the age of 18 will be liable to pay an equal share, and there is protection for the weaker and poorer members of the community. It will ensure that those who spend the money will be accountable to those who provide much of the money that is spent. It will ensure that business, commerce and industry will no longer become prey to the unreasonable demands of unreasonable councils and will be a fairer system because 69 per cent. of pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off.
Estimates using sample information aggregated from family expenditure surveys show that most families will be better off paying the proposed community charge than they are with rates. On average, the community charge will be lower than the rates bill, at all income levels up to £150 a week. When it is fully implemented, 53 per cent. of households or 9·8 million families in England will gain from the community charge. Critics try to sink the community charge and to dream up as many obstacles as possible. It is a racing certainty that they cannot come up with an alternative that provides fairness and accountability by councillors to those who provide the money that they spend.

Hon. Members: Reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Baldry: The Opposition will not be able to argue with any conviction whatever that the community charge will weaken democracy. They may rant about it, but throughout the passage of the Bill they have not come up with a viable alternative. They have been empty of ideas. The community charge will at last put the community in charge. It is a worthwhile and sensible reform and should command the support of the whole House.

Mr. John McFall: I was a member of the Committee and I can tell the House that we spent 147 hours debating the Bill. The first debate was about ability


to pay and the last debate will he about the same subject. I well remember the definition of the poll tax given by the Tory Reform Group. They said that it is fair only in the sense that the black death was fair. It is indiscriminate and strikes at rich and poor, young and old, unemployed and employed alike. That should be the theme of the last debate on the Bill.
Underlying the Bill is a let-them-eat-cake approach to social problems. It assumes a world of choice for everyone, but we know that choice is a function of economic viability arid, increasingly, the Government have denied that to many millions of people. The tax does nothing for individuals or for businesses. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in Committee about registration for individuals using the Simon Community, an organisation that looks after the destitute in London, and I well remember what he said. He said that he would be surprised if the community did not know where the people came from and where they went. That is the Government's view of reality, and that is why they are so out of touch.
I shall leave the last word to a constituent who sent me a definition of poll tax. It comes from the 1961 "Odhams Encyclopaedia" which says that it is
a tax per head of population—not graduated, imposed in primitive communities where it appears impossible to ascertain individual capacity to bear the burden.
I say that it is imposed by primitive political individuals on the Government Front Bench who have no sense of social responsibility. A leader in The Times said that it is a social Bill with wider social implications, The Economist, which is a friend of the Government, said we should scrap the tax, and The Times said it should he scuppered in another place. But Conservative Members who have spoken against the Bill should not confine their courage to their voices. They should transfer it to their feet by joining us and voting against the Bill tonight.

Mr. Simon Burns: I shall not detain the House for too long. After seven days on the Floor of the House and more than 140 hours in Committee debating numerous technical amendments and a number of welcome concessions, the community charge remains essentially the same as it leaves the House as it was when it entered this place.
The reason for that is not unexpected. We fought the last election on a manifesto that clearly stated that the community charge would be a fixed rate charge. On Second Reading, a substantial majority voted for the Bill. In Committee, although there were many Divisions, our majorities were large. Last Monday, on an amendment to change the basic idea behind the community charge, the Government's majority dropped, but it should never be forgotten that there was still a majority of 25 votes. Indeed, 320 of my hon. Friends supported the Government.
Finally, as the Bill goes to the other place, its opponents are clamouring for help. The alliance parties are inspiring the will of the House of Lords to do the work that could not be done in the House of Commons because this House did not approve changing the Bill. Lloyd George certainly must be smiling in his grave at the ironic position of the Opposition. The Labour party is clamouring for help from the House of Lords. The Labour party now must be

pleased that the proposed reform of that body by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) never saw the light of day.
As the measure reaches the other place, the Lords should think very carefully before they try to do anything substantially to change the Bill. The legislation was in our manifesto on which we won the election. Many Conservative Members voted consistently for the Bill I advise the Lords not to jump in too quickly to thwart the will of the House.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The defects of the poll tax are innumerable. It is cumbersome to administer, it is more difficult to collect and it creates the bureaucratic burden of maintaining the poll tax legislation. The fact that today we have heard that the poll tax will be subject to a capping mechanism shows that the Government do not believe their own promise that it will make local government more accountable.
The poll tax will increase the temptation to avoid registering to vote. Above all, the tax is not fair. It is hitting the poorest people in our society the hardest. Only last week I was told by a wealthy single man with two homes that he stood to gain £2,500 as a result of the measure. The people in Greenwich will lose almost universally. A survey of 1,500 people shows that 93 per cent. of the people in Greenwich will lose and 62 per cent. of them will lose by more than £500 a year. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.

Mrs. Barnes: Not only are the poor hit hard by the measure, but those on modest average incomes will find it extremely hard to pay an extra £500, £600 or £700 a year.
It has been suggested that no alternative has been put forward. Time and again my party has said that local income tax and proportional representation would at a stroke make local authorities properly democratically accountable.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I thought it a bad Bill and I should now like to see it dumped in the legislative dustbin from which its major provision came. The community charge is regressive, inefficient and unfair. The arguments in its favour were always thin and they have grown shabby and worn with repetition. Claims about increased accountability are wildly exaggerated and the statistics deployed in aid are, at best, questionable.
The poll tax is generally unpopular. The Committee and Report stages demonstrated that much of the Bill has been ill-prepared. The 11th hour concession about rebates was an inadequate response to the widespread desire, and our earlier commitment, that the new tax should take account of the ability of the individual or the household to pay. The circumstances surrounding this concession leave a nasty taste in one's mouth.
I regard the manifesto argument and justification as largely bogus. The issue was not generally discussed and debated at the general election. Indeed, Ministers were astonishingly reticent. or perhaps politically wise, in saying little about it. Some candidates, including myself, were careful to distance themselves from the proposal.
I cannot recall any other major measure introduced by a Conservative Government since Winston Churchill returned to power in 1951 which is as potentially damaging to the long-term interests of the Conservative party as this Bill. As I look at its intrinsic unfairness and its bureaucratic implications, I am sorry and ashamed that such a Bill should be introduced by Conservative Ministers. However, it is not really a Conservative measure, but rather a product of what is labelled by the media as Thatcherism.
Of course the Bill contains some useful provisions, but, in my judgment, these are insufficient to outweigh the fundamental flaws of this unfair community charge proposal. I shall vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) have spoken perceptively about the political realities of what is going through. Even when the Bill staggers out of this House and into the other place, the debate will not end. It is only just beginning. It will continue for another two years in the country. Day by day, people learn more about the poll tax, and there is a straightforward progression in all of this. The more that they know about it, the more they are opposed to it.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has been the only Tory Back-Bench Member to speak in favour of the Bill. I can use the script that he used, because I have here a brief from the Conservative reseach department. I recognised the phrases in it. It is a gullible's travels of the poll tax which gives the more gullible Conservative Members something to cling to. It says that the rates are anachronistic because they are a property tax. We do not believe that there is anything anachronistic about a property tax, and it is better to have an old but imperfect tax than an infinitely worse new tax. Tory Members are told to talk about lack of accountability and to tell people that nearly half of all local voters do not pay rates. That is a myth which appeals only to the simple-minded who believe that the only person to pay the rates is the one whose name happens to be on the rates demand.
Tories are told to go forth and tell the public that the rates are unfair and that a poor widow—presumably the same one who has just been hit by housing benefit cuts —pays the same as four adults. However, they are not to go forth and say that in future, under the poll tax, a millionaire will pay a quarter of what four poor adults will pay.
Conservatives are supposed to go forth and tell people that domestic rates are highly complex. However, they will not go forth and tell people that domestic rates are a model of clarity, compared with the Kafkaesque poll tax. Those are the facts. Eighty per cent. of the people in Scotland have come to despise the poll tax and its architects. The same process will take place in England and Wales.
The poll tax is wicked. It was conceived by people with no social concern, backed by people who do not have the independence of mind to think for themselves. The poll tax will be defeated, if not in this House, in the country. The people who have imposed the poll tax will be defeated with it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: To the great amusement of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made much of the Tory flagship leaving port. At least the Tory flagship has set sail. Where is the Labour flagship? It is still tied firmly to the quay. At the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we still do not know Labour party policy. The House and the nation have a right to know what the Labour party intends to foist on the nation if we are ever so unlucky as to elect a Labour Government.
The Labour party is afeared. It is afeared that it can no longer foist large business rates on an unsuspecting business community. It is afeared that it can no longer foist heavy rate rises on the community knowing that in many areas only one in four voters actually pays rates.
The Labour party is afeared. This is an historic moment. The community charge will be based on people's ability to pay because three quarters of the cost will be accounted for by business and taxation. That is why Conservative Members will vote for the Third Reading, not just in their ones and twos, but in their tens and hundreds.

Mr. Rooker: When the keel was laid for this flagship, the Prime Minister was not here. As it sets sail out of the harbour off the House of Commons, she is not here. There is no member of the Cabinet on the Government Front Bench except the Secretary of State for the Environment. Ministers are distancing themselves as far from this Bill as possible.
This Bill is the Tory flagship. The flagship will sink as a result of design defects as the flagship of the Royal Swedish navy sank as it left the harbour in 1628 because of design defects. The Bill is flawed. It is unfair and undemocratic. Indeed, it is anti-democratic in its drafting. It is also, of course, anti-local government from the first clause to the last.
Conservative Members have refused to defend any kind of independent local government system in this country. Five million adults in England will lose under the poll tax, including 1 million single pensioners. Those are the consequences awaiting this flagship.
Someone referred to concessions. We still do not know whether monks and nuns will be on rebates or exempt from the tax. The Government have lost the argument. Day in, clause in, and day out, clause out, they have lost the argument.
Every day over the past week, different Conservative Members voted against the Bill. The Bill would not pass on a free or secret vote. I challenge any Minister who contradicts that to raise his hand.
Our opposition has been positive and honourable. We have promoted amendments to the Bill to change the nature of the tax to make it fairer. We are promoting amendments to the Bill to change the nature of the tax, to make it fairer. We have promoted amendments to relate the tax to income, and to keep part of local government taxation related to property. At every juncture, the Government have rubbished each alternative. They have rubbished also the alternative put forward by their own Back Benchers. They have twisted the figures for exemption on every occasion that they have been put forward by the Opposition.
The words of a Conservative Member should be borne in mind; nobody will be able to accuse the Opposition——

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Of having a policy?

Mr. Rooker: No one will be able to accuse any Opposition party of seeking to make crude party political capital out of this Bill. We do not want this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we do not want the Bill, even though it will damage the Government to the point that they will lose the next election. We care about the detail but we do not want the Bill. That is why we have suggested alternatives. We have no secret desire to see the Bill on the statute book to the advantage of our party. Conservative Members may jest and laugh, but for them there is no long-stop down that Corridor. Whatever they may feel in their hearts, they will not deliver. The Bill will get its Third Reading, whatever the majority. However, I tell the Government that this Bill will bury them.

Mr. Howard: I intended responding to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) by remarking on the absence from the Opposition Front Bench of members of the shadow Cabinet. However, I would have been doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice because a couple of minutes ago there crept into the recesses of the Chamber, and can still be seen hidden, none other than the right hon. Gentleman the deputy leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It was he who described the opposition of his party to this Bill as vacuous—not honourable and positive as was suggested by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but vacuous, because the Opposition failed to put forward a policy of their own.
The Bill has occupied the attention of the House for a total of 188 hours. During the whole of our debate there has been one issue upon which almost all of us have been in complete agreement: we cannot continue with the existing system of paying for local government—the status quo is not an option. Change is urgently required, and only the Government had the courage to put to the people of this country specific proposals for change.
We had two objectives in seeking to reform the way in which we pay for local government. The need for accountability was recognised as long ago as 1966, when the Labour Government White Paper complained that many people who could afford to pay for local government made no contribution. The fact is that one will never achieve accountability in local government until everyone makes a direct contribution towards the cost of local authority services. The community charge, and only the community charge, fulfils that objective. We believe that a standard level of service should cost the same in every local authority area in the country. That is what the community charge, and only the community charge, will achieve. We believe that any variations in local spending should be paid for by the local communities that benefit from that spending. That is what the community charge, and only the community charge, will achieve.
For years there has been a clamour across the party divide for an end to the domestic rating system. There is only one difference between ourselves and the Opposition parties. It is not that only the Government see the need for reform; it is that only the Government have the courage and determination to carry out that reform. It is reform

that will be good for local communities, good for local government, and good for the people of this country. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 259.

Division No. 275]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Allason, Rupert
Curry, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Farr, Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Favell, Tony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, George


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, John


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hill, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)






Holt, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hunter, Andrew
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patnick, Irvine


Irving, Charles
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Jack, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jackson, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Janman, Tim
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Price, Sir David


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Leadbitter, Ted
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speller, Tony


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stevens, Lewis


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Mellor, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miller, Hal
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Iain
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thorne, Neil


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter





Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wiggin, Jerry


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wilshire, David


Walden, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Mike


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adley, Robert
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Douglas, Dick


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beckett, Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fisher, Mark


Benyon, W.
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Boyes, Roland
Galbraith, Sam


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hardy, Peter


Clay, Bob
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cohen, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.


Coleman, Donald
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Holland, Stuart


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Darling, Alistair
Hume, John






Illsley, Eric
McTaggart, Bob


Ingram, Adam
McWilliam, John


Irvine, Michael
Madden, Max


Janner, Greville
Mahon, Mrs Alice


John, Brynmor
Marek, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Martlew, Eric


Kennedy, Charles
Maxton, John


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Meacher, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Meale, Alan


Knox, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Lambie, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Lamond, James
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Leadbitter, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Leighton, Ron
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Lewis, Terry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Litherland, Robert
Morgan, Rhodri


Livingstone, Ken
Morley, Elliott


Livsey, Richard
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Loyden, Eddie
Mowlam, Marjorie


McAllion, John
Mullin, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Murphy, Paul


McCartney, Ian
Nellist, Dave


Macdonald, Calum A.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


McFall, John
O'Brien, William


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
O'Neill, Martin


McKelvey, William
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


McLeish, Henry
Parry, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Patchett, Terry


McNamara, Kevin
Pendry, Tom





Pike, Peter L.
Squire, Robin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Prescott, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Quin, Ms Joyce
Strang, Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Straw, Jack


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Richardson, Jo
Turner, Dennis


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George
Wall, Pat


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Joan


Rooker, Jeff
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Alun Michael.


Spearing, Nigel

Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure)

Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 434), dated 9th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
My reason for moving the motion is that on 9 March the Secretary of State announced that he intended to introduce further measures to restrict local authority capital borrowing expenditure. He said:
a minority of local authorities are employing artificial devices to incur capital expenditure and to undertake borrowing over and above the levels permitted to them under the existing capital control system."—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vo. 129, column 326.]
That was the Secretary of State's reason for bringing in the new measures. Again, the right hon. Gentleman is taking panic measures against local authorities, because councillors have found ways of providing for their constituents services that in many instances are important and necessary to maintain and to provide a worthy and Christian way of life in their communities. Tonight, the Secretary of State informed the House of further changes. His statement that he did not know what was happening further demonstrates the panic that the Government are in.
Furthermore, the new regulations come only three months after the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Consolidation and Amendment) Regulations 1987—statutory instrument No. 2186 of 1987. The financing devices that were under attack in the new regulations did not suddenly come to the Government's attention. The regulations suddenly became necessary through a lack of foresight and the crisis of management facing the Government. Hon. Members will recall that, only a few months ago, the Secretary of State said that he was the only person who understood local government finance. Tonight, he admitted that he does not have a clue. He does not know what is going on.
It has been accepted that several local authorities checked with the Department of the Environment before entering into any barter deals and schemes with private organisations. The Secretary of State told the House tonight that he did not know what was happening. That is a measure of how much the Secretary of State realises what is taking place in his Department.
Obviously, the advice that was given to local authorities was affirmative, and they proceeded in accordance with that advice. The Secretary of State then said that he knew nothing about what was happening. In fact, more than 250 local authorities could be affected by the move that was presented by the Secretary of State. As a result of the new regulations, several local authorities will incur prescribed expenditure set out in agreements that have already been entered into.
The Government have promised to consider issuing more additional capital allocations when the Secretary of State is satisfied that agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure borrowing controls. We are curious to learn from the Secretary of State how he intends to decide on the imperfections of

local authorities, and what information he has about the issuing of additional borrowing powers and to which authorities.
The Secretary of State said that there were no facts given on the issue. However, local authorities will be asking whether their particular schemes will be included in the exemptions that were announced by the Secretary of State. The Department of the Environment accepted that almost one third of local authorities could be affected by these regulations, where barter deals have been entered into. As I said, many authorities checked with the Department of the Environment on the schemes that they were considering before entering into any deals with the private sector. The action of the Secretary of State affects large and small authorities alike.
Cheltenham borough council intended to raise funds to provide a flood relief and draining scheme in their area. That was to be done by lease and leaseback deals, using a swimming pool complex to raise the funds. That is quite legitimate, but, because of the Secretary of State's action, that council will have to look for alternatives. It was not possible for Cheltenham borough council to find that amount of money from their allocations or capital receipts.
Gloucester city council had to stop a £5 million housing development on a former allotment site. That, again, was a necessary scheme. It will now have to find other means of raising funds for the scheme because of the Government cuts, both in the housing improvement programme and the housing investment programme, and because of the regulations that the Secretary of State announced that he would introduce.
Those schemes, and many others, were genuine capital schemes. The capital being raised was to fund existing capital programmes and not, as the Secretary of State implies, to bridge deficits in the revenue account.
Furthermore, local authorities are only copying the Government's attitude in using the assets available to them to finance other policies. The Secretary of State said that councils should transfer their asset base to the private sector. That is exactly what local authorities have been doing. It is devastating for people who serve on local councils, and wish to provide services for their communities, to discover that the Government are reneging on their advice to local government that it should be looking for other forms of financing capital schemes and that the private sector should be taken into consideration and into partnership.
I wish to question the Under-Secretary of State about the concessions that the Secretary of State said are to be made to local authorities. Wakefield district council, in the area I represent, used to boast of being the centre of the mining industry. However, over the past nine years we have watched the demise of the mining industry in west Yorkshire and, because of that demise, the district council wanted to retain some of the history of mining in the Wakefield area. With the co-operation of British Coal and other bodies, it was agreed to turn one of the smaller pits, which had closed, into a mining museum.
Caphouse colliery is a small colliery in West Yorkshire. It is a shallow pit, which is to be developed as a mining museum. The trust that was set up to develop the Caphouse colliery scheme applied to the European Community for a grant and was promised that a grant would be made. Suffice it to say that the Department of the Environment has told Wakefield district council that if the


application for the grant is approved and the grant is obtained, the council will have to give up an equivalent amount of loan sanction to cover it.
I ask the Under-Secretary whether the anomalous rules that the Government are introducing mean that that grant will count against that council's prescribed expenditure allocation. In other words, will Wakefield district council come under the provisions of the proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined, or will the grant that would be forthcoming from the EEC count against the capital borrowing levels of Wakefield district council? That issue can be mirrored in many other local authorities which are in the same situation of trying to develop something in their area under the barter system or the lease and leaseback arrangements.
I must also draw attention to the grotesque report that was issued by the Government on 9 March to try to substantiate their action in changing the law on capital spending. The chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Councillor Jack Layden, made it clear in his letter to the Secretary of State on 22 March that the statement that was issued by the Secretary of State was dramatically misleading.
Southwark's reply to the Secretary of State's statement was that the statement
could not be much further from the truth.
Richmond's reply was
Mr. Ridley's statement is entirely inaccurate as far as the reference to this council is concerned.
Coventry replied:
The statement contains a serious inaccuracy.
Manchester replied:
The Department should have been able to get the facts right
and stated that everything was discussed in public.
Brighton replied:
The section in the document is inaccurate and we have written to the Secretary of State to point this out.
In other words, the Secretary of State's statement was totally misleading, and inaccurate in many ways and should have been withdrawn at the very beginning. It is true that my report does not suit Conservative Members, but those are the facts. Local authorities are still waiting for replies to the points that they have made about the Secretary of State's statement.
I draw attention to the report of the Audit Commission entitled "Local Authority Property —A Management Overview." Paragraph 33 states:
Resources necessarily tied up in property could be released to generate capital receipts. At a time of increasing pressure on resources it is vital that authorities seek to augment their capital allocations whenever possible. Despite restrictions on the use of capital receipts, they are still worth having.
Paragraph 26 states:
Capital receipts can also be used for the redemption of debt thus also bringing revenue benefits. A balance therefore needs to be struck between investing in the life of the asset and other conflicting demands.
At paragraph 44, the Audit Commission states:
Central government ought to place more emphasis on `carrots' rather than 'sticks'. Incentives to develop under-used land could be improved by changes to the system of capital controls.
The Audit Commission is advising the Government that there is more to be gained from using incentives and offering support and carrots than from trying to beat local authorities with sticks, which is what the Secretary of State has been attempting to do for some considerable time.
The digest issued by the Association of District Councils refers to 150 district council projects which are in jeopardy because of the Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the new regulations. Of those, at least 31 are leisure schemes, more than 30 are housing schemes and a great many are to provide facilities for the elderly and the disabled.
The district councils are embarking on schemes to provide necessary facilities for their communities. Many involve development for industry, many provide office accommodation to release high-rented accommodation, some provide new market facilities in the communities and there are a host of other proposals. The majority of district councils are Tory-controlled or have no overall majority, so it is not Labour-controlled authorities that are pressing the Government for amendments to their regulations.
In view of what the Secretary of State said tonight, the most appropriate action is to withdraw the regulations. I ask the Minister to withdraw them. If he will not, I ask the House to reject them.

Sir John Farr: I cannot say that I give an enthusiastic welcome to these regulations, for many of the reasons which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) described and particularly because of their impact, which is unfair and harsh, on my district council. It is a modest, prudent, well-run, economically conducted affair, yet it finds these regulations wholly unacceptable.
I shall highlight one or two points in the letter I received today from the chief executive. He states:
In view of the progressive decline in the annual housing and other services block capital allocations over recent years the Council has had to seek various ways and means to enable its high priority schemes to proceed. Some major projects have been by means of 'advanced payments schemes' but, of course such devices were blocked by the earlier Government controls introduced about a year ago.
Accordingly, more recently and within the law, my district council
decided to engage in a 'barter scheme' by the sale of existing Council mortgages to achieve a barter arrangement in conjunction with CIPFA Services Limited. This arrangement was due to have financed two small housing schemes for elderly persons' bungalows"—
the sort of project that one would imagine all sides of the House would welcome—
at a total cost of £400,000, in villages in which the Council had made no previous housing provision. The barter scheme was also intended to allow the Council to provide a sports pavilion, at a cost of £160,000, for a 50 acre multi-pitch sports ground which the Council has recently acquired after many years of negotiation with a multiplicity of owners.
Such worthy projects will be blocked as a results of the regulations that we are discussing.
The latest capital expenditure controls also appear likely to block a scheme for bungalow provision for the elderly in another village where the Council intended to sell part of the housing site to a private developer in consideration of the developer building a small group of elderly persons' bungalows for the Council.
That scheme has been in the pipeline for many years and had unanimous support. As a result of inadequate housing investment allocation and limitation on the use of capital receipts, it has proceeded no further.
My council and I also believe that two further worthwhile projects will be prejudiced if the regulations re passed tonight. The first is a scheme relating to the provision of another group of bungalows for the elderly


under council control. In addition to that, the council has been negotiating to exchange land to provide sites for car parking and recreation.
Initially, it was difficult to believe that such modest requirements in the conduct of model local government should be blocked by any Government at Whitehall. Apparently the new proposals will prevent such exchanges. My council's chief executive has been in touch with the Department of the Environment and it has suggested that the council will be caught and prevented from proceeding with the schemes.
I want the Minister to explain why such model schemes designed to help elderly people and improve the running of small towns by the provision of additional car parking are to be blocked by the regulations.
My council would prefer not to resort to "unorthodox" means of financing capital schemes. The chief executive has, however, pointed out:
with the Housing Capital Allocation for 1988–89 at £640,000 and the Other Services Block Allocation at £171,000 it will be evident that capital investment is gradually nearing a standstill, even though the prescribed proportion of capital receipts now produces annually a spending potential almost double the capital allocations.
In recent years, Harborough district council has been a model of well-conducted local government. In deference to Government pressure and as a result of declining means of finance since the introduction of the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980, it has rephased or eliminated many other capital projects.
It will be obvious to the House that the particular schemes that I have mentioned were regarded as high priority by the council. I find it difficult to believe that it is the intention of the regulations to hamper good local government in such a way. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will give me answers that are sufficient to convince me to follow him into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: This important debate is on a set of regulations that is another example of the Government's determination to clamp down on local government's ability to deal with its present problems. To some extent, local authorities have had to use such means to finance projects in their areas because of the Government's controls on capital expenditure. By introducing legislation on the powers of local authorities and their means of raising finance, the Government have repeatedly attacked and restricted their ability to function. This is yet another example.
When the Secretary of State spoke earlier about the poll tax Bill, he made it clear that when he made his statement in March he did not realise the exact position. As it is becoming increasingly clear that this means of financing local government expenditure is being used by local authorities of all political persuasions, the Government should be prepared to think again about the regulations. The Association of District Councils has said that the regulations will jeopardise 150 district council projects. That must worry the Government.
As local authorities can use only a limited amount of their capital receipts, the Government must realise the problems that they are creating. The regulations would affect the ability of local authorities to tackle some of the

Government's so-called priorities on housing problems and urban decay. Since the general election, they have said much about tackling the problems of the inner cities, yet the regulations would make the task even more difficult.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) mentioned the problems that would be created in his constituency, and in the earlier debate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) listed the range of problems that would be created in his local borough if the Government do not change their mind. I hope that the Minister will respond to one or two points that I shall make about Burnley.
A few years ago, Burnley sold more than 100 unmodernised semi-detached council houses to Wimpey. The intention was to renovate the houses and sell them in the private sector, but most of them had been empty for some time. Instead of taking cash for those houses, because the council could have spent only 20 per cent. of it, it agreed that Wimpey should modernise 12 houses that remained in council ownership. It meant that 12 families could have their houses modernised immediately, instead of the smaller number whose houses could have been modernised by the limited amount of capital receipts that the council could have spent.
The chief executive officer of Burnley borough council told me that it is involved in a neighbourhood revitalisation scheme in conjunction with the Government. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) visited the area recently to examine the problems of the Hargher Clough and Stoops estates. Those schemes could also be affected if the Government are not prepared to consider sensibly how they will be financed.
The central area of Burnley also needs modernisation, and we must deal with the car parking problems in the town centre. Those examples are similar to those cited by Conservative Members. It seems sensible that local authorities should be able to deal with the problems; let us have regeneration rather than allowing dereliction and decay.
The Government repeatedly say that local government and the private sector should work together. Surely such schemes are a good example of local authorities and the private sector working together to deal with problems in their areas. The chief executive pointed out to me a scheme in the neighbouring authority of Pendle. The authority is to form a company and take a lease or enter a leaseback arrangement to enable it to build a swimming bath. That scheme, too, could be jeopardised if we continue to move in this direction. The regulations have nothing to commend them; they do nothing to enable local authorities to deal with their problems. They will serve only to ensure that the problems get worse rather than tackling them now.
I hope that the Minister will think again. As I said, the Secretary of State made it clear that much more information had come to his attention since he made his statement in March. In the earlier debate, the Minister said that he would grant two concessions to the schemes in the pipeline, but that does not mean that similar schemes will be able to go ahead in future. The Minister may have faced up to reality with regard to schemes that have already been negotiated or are being negotiated now and may have solved the problems they pose, but if he believes that they are valid and justified now, he ought to permit similar


schemes in future. If he does not do that, he must once again accept responsibility for creating problems for local government.

Mr. John Butterfill: One of the principal problems that the Government faced when they came to power was the indebtedness, not just of national Government but, significantly, of local authorities, particularly as local authorities account for 25 per cent. of all public expenditure. It is significant that, when the controls on the use of capital receipts were first introduced, many local authorities asked, "Why should we not be able to spend the money that we receive from the sale of assets? It is our money and we have it there in the bank." But of course, they did not have the money in the bank. Had they paid the money into the bank, they would only have reduced their indebtedness. That is true of local authorities up and down the land. They are all heavily borrowed and there is a need to reduce the amounts that they borrow. That is why the Government rightly introduced controls on the use of capital receipts.
The measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced on 9 March proved to be absolutely right. It was necessary to introduce them to ascertain the scale of avoidance of the capital receipts rules through the use of barter. My right hon. Friend has done the nation a great service by introducing the regulations.
Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to respond, as he did earlier this evening, to the particular problems that have been revealed in many places, arising from the regulations. It was right, for example, to make exemptions to allow local authorities to deal with existing unavoidable contractual arrangements. It was right, too, to examine individual proposals for expenditure—par-ticularly where those were necessary to achieve comprehensive redevelopment or to assist in land assembly or with similar problems.
I thank the Secretary of State for his action, which has been very helpful to my own constituency of Bournemouth, West. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and I have made a number of representations to the Secretary of State about particular projects in Bournemouth. One was the major redevelopment of an area in Boscombe in which the council was involved in a major programme of land assembly and in promoting with private interests the redevelopment of a rundown area. That was absolutely right and I hope that it will fall precisely within the exemptions that my right hon. Friend has announced.
The other proposal was to refurbish the pavilion in Bournemouth. Again, we proceeded with a partial privatisation of that asset, which all Conservative Members think is entirely laudable. I hope that that project will also fall within the terms of the exemptions announced by my right hon. Friend.
In general, the principle that we need to control public expenditure must be right. In particular, we need to take action where it is clear that avoidance measures are being taken by some local authorities that do not accept the need for such control. The regulations laid before the House on 9 March by my right hon. Friend are right and have been proved right by subsequent events.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In a way this is part two of the debate on the Local Government Finance Bill, because earlier we talked about new clauses to do with barter, and we are now talking about regulations to do with leaseback. I shall join other hon. Members in praying against the regulations.
Two sorts of arrangements will be caught by the regulations if they are approved by the House. One is sale and leaseback and the other is lease and leaseback. I entirely understand the Government's general economic policy, about which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has just spoken. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that in many respects, and not just for specific constituency reasons that we put forward when we seek to have an exemption granted, it would be quite consistent for him to argue the Government's policy while at the same time opposing the regulations. I hope that at least I have the hon. Gentleman's understanding of that.
One cannot be dogmatic in asserting that leaseback arrangements need necessarily mortgage the future or the massive increase in public expenditure that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West implied in his speech. We do not take the view that one ought to condone leaseback schemes that allow the elected representative of tomorrow to charge their poll tax payers a massive amount for the expenditure of today.
There can be perfectly reasonable leaseback schemes in which the method of arranging the lease and the finance does not build up the cost towards the end of the term. The cost is charged reasonably at the beginning, when people pay for what they receive. Many local authorities, mainly metropolitan authorities, will be caught by these arrangements, and not all those authorities are controlled by the same party. Outside London, Doncaster and Newcastle will be caught. Inside London, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark, which are Labour-controlled, will be caught, as will Merton and Westminster which are controlled by the Conservatives, and Tower Hamlets and Richmond which are controlled by my colleagues.
All those authorities have schemes that were worked out over months or years with Government approval, and different arrangements were made along the lines that the Government said they were keen to support. Sometimes it is necessary to go further and to do a true sale or leaseback in order to raise money to meet the bills of today. When the Government impose enormous cuts on local government, that often drives local authorities to extreme positions.
Of course, the capital control system is the main reason for councils trying to be creative and to get around the controls. Like other hon. Members, I have always accepted that there must be an upper limit on capital expenditure and that the Government must set reasonable parameters. However, example by example, scheme by scheme, lease by lease is not the way in which the controls should be implemented.
I shall make a couple of points that, as far as I am aware, have not been made. First, I resent the fact that the scheme has not been subject to prior consultation. The Minister will know that in the past there has been consultation. I know that his first line of reply will be to say that this is a temporary scheme which runs only until October and that the regulations have a limited life and will have to be renewed. I understand that, but I can tell


the Minister and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) whose speech I heard and understood, that the legal advice received by some councils suggests that, even in these regulations, the Government may be acting illegally.
I say that carefully. I do not make an allegation wildly but on the basis that it has been held in advance that regulations brought about without consultation and which would act to the severe detriment of local authorities who had entered into arrangements on the basis of expectation and prior practice could well be illegal. I warn the Government about that and hope that they do not find themselves in the same political difficulty as in the past when they have brought to the House measures which were later held to be illegal by the courts.
Secondly, I must repeat the complaint by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in the earlier debate. My research assistant wrote to the private secretary of the Secretary of State following the announcement of 9 March and she replied—no doubt in similar terms to the reply given to the hon. Member for Copeland—enclosing a copy of the notes which the press officers gave to
members of the Press who asked for examples of the kind of local authority schemes which might be affected
The words ring amusingly hollow. It continued:
This was not a note prepared with formal distribution in mind.
The next day it managed to get into the papers, including The Daily Telegraph, the local papers in Southwark and Richmond and many others.
The trouble is that what was asserted was patently untrue. It is extremely poor practice for the Government to distribute to the press—although it was not an official document marked, "Press release from the DOE"—a list of facts and assertions about practices in local authorities which are inaccurate or insubstantial. Will the Minister explain how that came about? I have no doubt that those allegations, probably from Conservative party political sources, were disseminated and publicised unchecked and gave many of the councils concerned—including Conservative councils—a bad name.
Richmond, a council run by my party, was in that list. The Daily Telegraph stated:
Richmond-upon-Thames planned to raise £10 million to finance a leisure complex by leaseback of assets.
Richmond has not attempted to raise money for a leisure complex by a leaseback scheme. The reference is entirely erroneous.
Tower Hamlets has two leaseback schemes which have had to be abandoned as a result of the 9 March statement. The first involved buying accommodation for providing temporary housing for homeless families before they were rehoused permanently in ordinary council stock. The temporary accommodation was outside the borough. Such accommodation can be used only in ways of which the Government approve. Tower Hamlets would have been doing just what the Government have been asking it to do —provide units for large families averaging six members and involving in total to 2,400 people. It would have been cheaper than bed and breakfast and would have used private finance.
The second scheme was to set up an "arm's-length" development company in Globe Town which would raise private money to buy sites locally which would be sold to

housing associations and then leased back to the council. In this case, £300 million expenditure would have provided 800 homes for shared ownership schemes over three years and 300 to 400 ordinary rented homes for people in Tower Hamlets.
The great problem is that, if those schemes, or any others, are caught under the Government's proposals, the councils have to seek exemption. The theory is fine, but the reality is that sometimes, it never happens administratively, I can give a specific example to show that the after-the-event approval is not working, and things have clogged up in Marsham street. In February 1987, certain schemes were outlawed—for example, some in Tower Hamlets. The council sought approval for a scheme—the Minister may know it—involving the National Leasing and Finance Co., Merrill Lynch and the United Kingdom Housing Trust Ltd. As of today, 14 months after the request, no answer has been received.
Tower Hamlets wrote to the Department of the Environment seeking an exemption on 13 February 1987, received no reply, chased it on 3 April, received a holding reply on 8 April, heard no more. I raised it when I went with a deputation in the autumn; there was a letter back from the Department on 19 November, saying that it was seeking legal advice, and would be writing again. Tower Hamlets has still heard nothing, 14 months after asking for an exemption for a scheme that the Government encouraged. It is not acceptable for the Government to change the rules to say that they will make the decision and then not to decide anything. This scheme would have allowed a £50 million rented housing scheme, but it cannot happen.
I shall give an example from my constituency, to pre-empt what might otherwise be a similar delay. Southwark was mentioned in this list of what was envisaged by local councils. The article claimed:
Southwark raised £30 million by leaseback of offices and fixtures and fittings in council houses. The deal will cost £96 million over 20 years.
Sadly, that, too, was completely false. Southwark did not raise the money, the scheme did not involve the leaseback, of council house fixtures and fittings, and money was to be used not for revenue purposes but as capital resources. The important thing is that Southwark is affected, because the announcement on 9 March has frozen expenditure, so all capital schemes have had a moratorium placed on them.
This is an excellent scheme that the Government have applauded as a partnership between the London docklands corporation, the council, the Housing Corporation, the Nationwide building society and Barratts. The Amos estate is the place, in the old, downtown area of Southwark docks. This is just the sort of scheme which the Government have smiled upon and encouraged. It involved a public, voluntary and private sector partnership, with the knowledge of the previous Minister for Housing, and approval intimated by officials.
The scheme was agreed and signed in September, and it was due to be opened by the Queen Mother in June. Now, it has effectively been banned retrospectively. This is ludicrous. We cannot do anything to help that, but although my constituents and my local council do not agree on everything, like any logical people, we ask the Government to get their act together, instead of producing regulations that ban a scheme that they have encouraged, and which partnership deals have been implemented, that is ready to go and due to be opened.
I hope that the Government will look at schemes such as that in the Amos estate in Southwark and realise that this sort of ex post facto legislation banning the lot and then seeking to undo the effects is the wrong way round. Leaseback, and sale and leaseback, can be a perfectly reasonable way forward. For heaven's sake, will Ministers not be so paranoid about local government?

Mr. Roger Knapman: I second all that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, no doubt with a great deal more eloquence than I can command. He raised an important point: some quarter of all Government expenditure in this sector is conducted by local authorities, so we must examine it. After listening for the last half-hour, I wonder whether there is any form of control over local government expenditure that Opposition Members consider right and proper. We heard something from their Front Bench about a carrot. Carrots help one to see in the dark, and that would be an asset in the activities that Labour councils control.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the difference between those local authorities that are selling or leasing assets merely to balance the books and those that are doing it to achieve some form of capital expenditure as they carry out many forms of worthwhile activities, particularly those authorised under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and subsequent Acts. I believe that there are many enabling powers that we do not want to hamper.
I listened with great interest to details of the new scheme this afternoon and especially to the third part, or that part of it I could hear—I will read the report in Hansard tomorrow with interest—about the assets that can be finished and then owned or managed by the private sector. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me when he replies whether the private sector will include building societies and housing corporations. Will they be able to take over the activities from local authorities?
I would have thought that these measures would have satisfied all but the most avid empire-builder in local authorities. They leave a great deal of scope and I welcome them. I also suggest that Opposition Members should not criticise any part of the proposals until they are quite sure that local authorities in their constituencies do not have scores of empty council houses.

Mr. Tony Banks: These regulations are a clear example of the Government believing in their own propaganda. They are an example of the Government legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said earlier, local authorities have got themselves into this situation not because they are wilful, or spendthrift or because they like dancing rings around the civil servants at the Department of the Environment, but because they have been forced into it by the circumstances imposed on them by central Government policies.
The Government have been panicked by what they have read in the newspapers. The mealy-mouthed comments, innuendos and downright lies now seem to inspire the Government in terms of their relationship with

local government and it is causing them to make asses of themselves. That is precisely what the Government have been doing over this measure.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) spoke in that vein, as if this matter dealt with intransigent local authorities that just wanted to carry on spending money for the sake of it. I do not know what experience the hon. Gentleman has of local government. However, I want to inform the Minister that a whole range of Labour-controlled authorities in London have viable schemes which might now be threatened—although we cannot be sure whether they are threatened because further changes were announced earlier this evening.
We have already heard a litany of complaints from Conservative Members about how their local authorities will be affected. I hope that the Minister was able to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who described the kind of schemes that would be caught. I also hope that the Minister heard the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) detailing the schemes that might now be jeopardised by the Government's proposals.

Mr. John Battle: My hon. Friend may recall that one of the schemes referred to was intended to solve the problem of Airey houses and homes that have been classified as defective by the Government. Will my hon. Friend care to remind the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who referred to scores and scores of empty council houses, that one of the great problems has been defective houses which councils have not been able to improve because no system has existed to enable them to do so? When people have bought those houses, they have been blighted because mortgage companies would not give mortgages for them unless the authorities could find solutions to those problems. It comes a little cheap from Conservative Members to refer to houses being boarded up if they do not look at the facts and the evidence and without providing the funds to do something about the problem.

Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This is an example of Conservative Members speaking from the depths of their prejudices and bigotry rather than from the experience that Opposition Members and others have of the problems that we have to confront in the inner cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned a problem that also exists in the London borough of Newham where there are Taylor Woodrow Anglian blocks. Ronan Point is in the constituency of Newham, South. A development brief has been issued for the disposal and development of those blocks. They are all empty: 800 units of accommodation are now void because they are unsafe and cannot be used. Therefore, the council has become involved in a proposal that could involve an element of barter. I want to know from the Minister whether that particular scheme in the London borough of Newham involving the Taylor Woodrow Anglian blocks, which he knows much about, will go ahead under his new proposals.
I turn now to some of the "wilful" schemes in Labour boroughs. Hammersmith and Fulham council made a last-minute bid to escape the deadline and on the night of 9 March it entered into a £25 million deal which involved retaining the freehold on non-residential property and leasing it back through a company wholly owned by the


council. The money will be used both to refurbish existing housing stocks and to build new houses; what a waste of money—seeking to improve existing homes and build new ones. What an irresponsible council Hammersmith and Fulham has become! I mention also its 1988–89 HIP allocation of £14·3 million and its estimated bed-and-breakfast bill of £7 million. What do Conservative Members know about the problems that confront councils serving London's inner-city areas?
Haringey has been caught with a scheme comprising 45 units of accommodation, all destined for use as temporary housing. Lewisham has a scheme of 48 one and two-bedrooms flats caught by the rule change. It is another of the boroughs that now finds that it must allocate all its housing to homeless families, with the remainder going to urgent transfer cases. Those are the problems with which London local authorities are trying to deal, and by using the very schemes and arrangements which the Government and Conservative Members roundly condemn, without knowing precisely why they were proposed.
Before the Minister attempts to defend the indefensible, I may ask him what will be the situation for a number of the schemes in Newham. We have short-term private property having leases of from five to 10 years for the homeless. We have also the leases of office accommodation for more than three years, and leases and leaseback deals for newly built housing with housing associations or developers—for example, the Winsor and Moore Paragon schemes. Then there are the barter deals; package deals with developers, whereby the council receives land, works or buildings as part of the package; package deals undertaken through the medium of a private company, whereby land, works and so on are funded by private finance; and other developments with private developers, whereby the council receives land or works, depending on how the legislation is drawn up.
Those are just some examples, and while it sticks in the throats of many Labour local authorities to make so many deals in the private sector, they do so because they wish to look after the interests of the people in their boroughs. It is for that reason that they will sit down and sup with the devil—and that includes the Secretary of State, who would perhaps be an even less attractive proposition as a dinner companion than the devil himself.
With regard to private sector leasing, Newham's current policy is to lease private properties for the homeless for a period of between five and 10 years, without needing—at present—to use any capital resources. As from 10 March 1988, such leases will result in prescribed expenditure to the full freehold value. Newham's schemes are designed not to get around capital controls but to alleviate the homeless crisis that exists there. It is a major crisis. In 1983–84, Newham was spending only £52,000 per year on bed-and-breakfast charges. In 1987–88, that increased to more than £5 million. The borough must do something to deal with that grave social problem, which afflicts not only Newham but the whole of London's inner city.
The Government deny councils the resources to deal with the problem on the ground, as it were, by building new council accommodation. However, councils are bound to enter into such arrangements and it would be a dereliction of their duty if they did not do so. I hope that

when the Minister replies he will say that where a borough such as Newham has made barter or leaseback deals to deal honestly with its housing problem, those schemes will be approved by the Department of the Environment.
I have already mentioned the Taylor Woodrow-Anglian blocks. Let me also mention the Woodlands estate, the Upton park goods yard/Cleves road development, and the docklands and other planning proposals. All are known to the Department. Letters have been going backwards and forwards. At least, they have been going towards the Department; we have not received many replies yet. Will the Minister give me an assurance that tomorrow he will go to his Department and ask his civil servants to dig out all correspondence relating to the various deals that have been received from the London borough of Newham, and that a speedy and urgent reply will result?
Earlier, the Secretary of State made it clear in a very disarming way that when the announcement was made on 9 March he did not know very much about the position. He now realises that it was not as he had thought: that it was not as he had read it in The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Evening Standard. It did not resemble the propaganda put out by Conservative Central Office. It did not even resemble what had been caught up in the fevered minds of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench and at No. 10 Downing street.
It was a case of local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, trying to deal with the problems that now confront them—many of those problems exacerbated by central Government policies. Because of the way that they have done this, they should gain the Government's support, not their opposition. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to tell me something good for once, so that I can go back and tell the people of Newham.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): This is, in a sense, the second part of a debate that was started earlier this evening when we discussed the new clauses to the Local Government Finance Bill. Perhaps I could start by making some general remarks about the regulations, and then reply to the specific points that have been raised.
The regulations have two main purposes. First, they shorten from 20 years to three the maximum length of lease that is exempt from prescribed expenditure control. Secondly, they provide that certain capital receipts shall not give rise to additional spending within the capital control system.
It has been suggested that the regulations mark a major new restriction on local authority activity. That is not the case. The regulations are a response to a growth in local authority activity outside the capital control system. The previous regulations exempted from capital controls leases which were for less than 20 years, and which were not building leases in the sense that it was envisaged that buildings would be built on the land for the local authorities concerned.
If local authorities had been content to accept the spirit of the regulations then, there would have been no need for action. In the event, however, leasing has become a growth industry. We have seen a flurry of leases for a period of 20 years less one day, sometimes with recitals that it is the


intention of the parties that they should be renewed after 20 years. We have seen elaborate option agreements which appear to have no purpose other than to avoid the provisions on building leases.
The regulations therefore reduce the exemption period from 20 years to three. They also remove the exemption from leases that are part of a wider transaction. That leads me to the question of lease and leaseback.
I fully accept that lease and leaseback and sale and leaseback are well recognised commercial techniques. Their commercial purpose is well known. They are a means of allowing a loan to be raised on the security of property. They are in fact loans, although they may not in law be loans.
There is no reason why a local authority should need to raise a loan by this means, other than to avoid borrowing controls. Local authorities have exellent credit ratings, and the Local Government Act 1972 secures the loans that they raise on their revenues. The regulations therefore provide that a lease taken by a local authority is always within capital controls if the authority already holds a freehold or superior leasehold interest in the property.
One of the principles underlying the 1980 Act is what I might call the "duality" of prescribed expenditure and capital receipts. If a local authority disposes of an asset, or ceases to possess an asset, it is treated as if it had received a capital receipt equal to the amount of prescribed expenditure that it would have had to incur to acquire the asset. Regulation 2 preserves that principle. It provides that no capital receipt is generated on the acquisition of which no prescribed expenditure, or nil prescribed expenditure, was scored.
The regulations have a temporary effect. They will expire on 1 October, and will be replaced by permanent regulations on or before that date. That is because they were of necessity introduced without prior consultation and with immediate effect. I regret that experience dictated that the legislative changes had to be introduced without consultation. I drew attention earlier, however, when we were discussing the Local Government Finance Bill on Report, to what our experience has been. I am sure that the House will accept that it was prudent to announce our decision in the way that we did on 9 March.

Mr. Tony Banks: On 9 March, the Secretary of State said:
if time permits, we intend to legislate, in the autumn, for a total reform of the capital control system."—[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 333.]
Does that remain the policy of central Government?

Mr. Chope: Certainly. It is the policy of central Government to reform the capital control system. We hope to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to bring that into effect.
In recognition of experience on consultation, the regulations are temporary. We are consulting the local authority associations on what changes should be made before permanent regulations are laid. Even tomorrow, there will be a meeting between the officials of the Department of the Environment and local authority representatives to discuss some of the detail of the regulations.
One of the proposed relaxations concerns the transfer of new town houses. The present regulations provide that, where a local authority has acquired assets since the start of the present control system without incurring prescribed

expenditure, the disposal of those assets will not generate a capital receipt. This is to ensure that local authorities that have acquired assets outside the capital control system do not get credited with spending power within that system if they sell them.
It has been brought to our attention that this will prevent district councils which have taken transfers of new town houses and other assets from having the benefit of receipts from sales. That was not the intention of the regulations, and the anomaly will be corrected in relation to new town assets and other transferred assets when permanent regulations are introduced. The Department will take administrative action in respect of disposals in the meantime.
I do not think that it is appropriate in the time available to enter into a long discussion about the list of schemes that was released to the press and the circumstances that surrounded that. That is history. It was not part of an organised press release. I am sure that the Government would have been criticised by Opposition Members if we had not had available some examples of the sort of abuses that were taking place.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I ask the Minister to comment on a short paragraph in a letter that I received from Redditch borough council. It concerns a series of barter schemes that would have created a number of dwellings for the people of Redditch. The paragraph reads:
However, there would be distinct advantages if the Secretary of State could be persuaded to exempt barter schemes which were already the subject of agreement on 9th March, but where the assets to be acquired under the agreement had not yet been transferred to the Council.
Can the Minister give any guidance to the chief executive of Redditch in the light of that paragraph?

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that issue when we were debating new clauses that were tabled on Report to the Local Government Finance Bill, especially those that dealt specifically with barter and interim pipeline arrangements. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Official Report for details of the concessions that were made.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I heard what the Minister said about the press release or handout on 9 March. Will he give the House an undertaking that in future the Department will not issue, formally or informally, documents that are clearly inaccurate and have not been checked that bring local government into unnecessary disrepute?

Mr. Chope: The document was much more accurate than some Opposition Members might care to admit. It made it clear that there were many schemes in the pipeline and others that had already been implemented. Not all the schemes had come to the notice of the Department in detail. Our experience is that councils are reticent about some schemes. The substance of the document was to a large extent correct. In a letter to the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, my right hon. Friend set out the issue clearly. That document is a public letter that has been released to the press.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the EEC grant to be paid on the mining museum in Wakefield. That has nothing to do with the regulations that are before us. He also raised a point about


agreements that are already entered into. If a local authority took a lease under an agreement to which both parties were fully committed on or before 9 March, the new regulations do not apply. They apply to agreements that become binding on or after 10 March.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Audit Commission report. My right hon. Friend also referred to that report in his remarks in the debate on the new clauses. We accept the point that the Commission made, although not the wider conclusions that the hon. Member for Normanton drew. The report is relevant to barter and to the new clauses that the Opposition did not vote against, but not to the regulations, which are about leasing and not property rationalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) asked for an explanation of the reasons for the measures announced on 9 March. From his description of the schemes, they are affected, if at all, by the new clauses that we debated earlier, rather than by the regulations. I urge him to read in the Official Report the explanation that my right hon. Friend gave when moving the new clauses. I urge him and the council in the area that he represents to consider the terms of the concessions announced earlier.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that, for the purposes of the regulations, building societies and housing associations are classed as private sector.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised several points. He did not tell us the extent to which, in the past, Newham incurred capital expenditure. It has now accumulated capital debt of £450 million. That is the figure for 1986–87. That is a £2,199 debt per head of population. The hon. Gentleman wants to allow that council to have freedom to incur more and more debt without any restraint whatever. We have a capital control system to prioritise capital spending by local authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I specifically put to the Minister a point about delay in dealing with exemptions, and cited the example of a 14-month delay. Will the Minister admit to the House that that is entirely unacceptable and that, if he wants to go ahead with the scheme, it will not be on the basis that local government cannot get an exemption or a reason from the Department?

Mr. Chope: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for that matter.
Again, schemes were introduced in which approvals can be given. Some of them have turned out to be a lot more complicated than was at first thought.
The Government have an excellent record on capital controls and on capital allocations to local authorities. Indeed, in 1987–88, there was gross capital expenditure by local authorities of over £6·7 billion. That is 30 per cent. of all public sector capital expenditure, civil and military.
The debate is about definitions. It is about bringing within the control system those schemes of a capital nature that should be brought within the control system. Surely that is sensible and should commend itself to the House.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has not convinced his colleagues or the Opposition. Each hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has outlined to him the shortcomings and problems that, because of the regulations, authorities in their constituencies must meet.
The Minister said that the press release from the Secretary of State's Department was accurate. Yet local authorities have submitted evidence to show that the statements in the press release were totally inaccurate. The Minister should have agreed that it should have been withdrawn. Local authorities have been slighted by some schemes that were genuinely entered into in accordance with the law and in line with the previous regulations that were set by the Department of the Environment.
Referring to the Wakefield scheme, I take it that there will be no problem with EEC grants financing local authority capital schemes and that the Minister has assured the House that they will not be taken into consideration.
Finally, I make one point concerning the question of the 20 years less one day. In Wakefield, there is a residuary body scheme for the provision of office accommodation. Is the Minister saying that the residuary body will be able to reclaim that scheme in 20 years' time? That was the implication which the Minister gave in his reply to a question from one of my hon. Friends. In view of the uncertainty of the regulations, I ask the Minister to withdraw them. If he will not, we shall vote against them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes: 147, Noes: 274.

Division No. 276]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Douglas, Dick


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, A. E. P.


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)






Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Prescott, John


Lamond, James
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leadbitter, Ted
Redmond, Martin


Leighton, Ron
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, Geoffrey


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Salmond, Alex


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Wall, Pat


Meale, Alan
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wareing, Robert N.


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. Alun Michael and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Chris


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, John


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eggar, Tim


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric





Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Major, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
Malins, Humfrey


Freeman, Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Miller, Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heddle, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Holt, Richard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ryder, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanley, Rt Hon John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)






Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Ward, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Mike


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (TRANSFERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Committee tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)

That the draft (Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16th March 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on items 5 and 6 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th February.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Turkey) Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th February.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Social Security

Mr. John Battle: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Leeds Church Action on Poverty Group and residents of the city of Leeds. This petition is a protest against the reductions in social security benefit that have been taking their toll on the disposable incomes of many of the less well-off since the beginning of this month. The benefit reductions and the result of the implementation of the reform of social security which, despite great public criticism, became the Social Security Act 1986, have resulted in cuts in housing benefit in particular. Its effects are now being felt and, my petitioners believe, will lead to a real increase in poverty for many people in our society. The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will repeal the Social Security Act 1986 and introduce a social security system that protects all the poor in our society.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Hartland Point Coastal Rescue Station

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply to this debate and to my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) for their support.
The background to the debate is the Secretary of State's decision to transfer the Hartland search and rescue responsibilities to Swansea and to close the sub-centre. The Secretary of State was good enough to see me immediately he announced his decision and I expressed the concern of the public and myself at the decision. My right hon. Friend offered me the opportunity of having the chief coastguard, Captain Peter Harris, with me for a public meeting. The purpose of the meeting—as I suggested—was to test the community's response and to try to find evidence that would enable me to persuade my hon. Friend to change his mind. That meeting has taken place and the main point of my speech is that the community would prefer to keep Hartland as it is.
The sub-centre should be kept because the coast is treacherous and dangerous and local fishermen are at risk. The growth in tourism has been enormous and the north Devon link road and the Okehampton bypass are rapidly developing. Facilities are being provided to tempt local people and holiday-makers to use the sea more. There are now five adventure training centres in the Bideford area alone, with sea canoeing, surfing, sailboarding, coast and cliff activities offered. There is an estuary ski centre, two rowing clubs, four small sailing clubs, the north Devon yacht club and other marinas planned.
Perhaps a thousand people, many of them children, use the Bideford bay and estuary each week. Is it any wonder that many of the facilities provided by the search and rescue service help those users of the sea? Indeed, we encourage people to come to Devon and Cornwall to enjoy our coastline. Both the population and the tourist industry are growing.
At the same time as the great growth in amateur and professional activity on the sea and cliffs, Trinity House is ceasing to maintain the Bideford bell buoy and the leading lights. The Royal National Lifeboat Institute is withdrawing the Bristol channel lifeboat at Clovelly. Now we are faced with the closure of the Hartland search and rescue sub-centre. As a result of those three impending, separate moves, there has been a severe and natural loss of confidence within the fishing community, among other local sailors, their families and visitors, about future safety at sea.
The swiftness of the provision of the information did not help. The local coastguards heard of their impending transfer from the BBC. Their worries were immediately passed on and shared by the entire community. The loss of the coastguards and their families will be felt most keenly by the community who know them personally as well as in their professional capacity; they are admired and valued. People are also worried about the auxiliaries whose part-time work is also at risk. In such a small town, the 20 or so jobs matter very much. Work is not so prolific in our area that we can afford to lose even a single part-time job.
The entire community wants the Minister to keep the Hartland search and rescue sub-centre open and based at home. If the change must go ahead, can the Minister give me any assurance regarding the job security of the auxiliaries? Indeed, is there a chance that he could strengthen their role? Is there no work that could be left behind—no tasks connected with the maritime rescue sub-centre that the auxiliary rescue company could take up? The Minister will be aware that the auxiliaries are a hard-working and dedicated body of people. With the impending loss of the coastguards, it would be good to extend their service to the community still further.
If the proposed closure does take effect, I am pleased to hear that there will be no job loss among the coastguards, but that they will be transferred.
Our sector officer, of course, will remain. Would it be possible to strengthen his post if not by the appointment of a second sector officer, perhaps by concentrating his geographical area or in some other way? He is our community policeman in sea-going terms and he must not be stretched too far. Indeed, he will be the only full-time officer left.
As for Swansea—that dreadful place which strikes fear into the hearts of all at Hartland—there is a rumour that there will be inadequate staffing there, that there will not be sufficient officers on the watch and that not enough people will be in charge. Can the Minister assure me that there will be adequate staffing at Swansea? After all. it will have to cope with a double work load. Double the number of accidents will be sent through to the Swansea area.
There is a great worry that the telephone system will be inadequate. People who dial 999 complain constantly that they cannot get through. Will the telephone system be strengthened so that 999 calls will get through? That still leaves the fear that the general public, who report so many accidents, will not bother to make a trunk call. It is easy to make a local call, and we hope that they will still take the trouble when it becomes a long distance call.
Great concern was expressed at the meeting about the problem of distance. Everyone accepts that the new technology high-frequency radios will be effective, but not everyone has them. Many of the very small sailors, including sailboarders, do not have such equipment. However much we press them, they just will not have it.
But will the distance matter in terms of safety? Some people expressed fears about the distance because of the radio. Can the Minister assure me that he will monitor the speed of responses and that., in the coming months, if the decision takes effect, he will look carefully to see whether the response is genuinely as rapid as though the local coastguards were still at Hartland? Can he tell us honestly that it will be as swift and effective? That is the deepest fear of everyone, allied with the natural worry that, in the necessarily lengthy period of transfer, the coastguards based in Swansea will not know the local coastline well.
I was reassured by Captain Peter Harris's statement that he was transferring local coastguards more slowly so that they could teach their colleagues, but, as one local fisherman said: "They know me. They know where I fish, and when I get into trouble they know where I am. How can anyone in Swansea have that local knowledge?" That was a personal statement, but it expressed the community's fears.
I have a petition signed by 1,300 people which was gathered together swiftly in only five days. Treble the number of signatures could have been attracted had the


period been longer. One of the most important points made at the meeting was the need for a visual watch. I know, because Captain Harris told me, that we have not had a visual watch at Hartland since 1983, and that in many ways it is an archaic mthod of preserving safety at sea. As one of the coastguards said, at the exact moment that an accident happens he may be looking sideways. He may not be getting a cup of coffee, but something else may happen. The visual watch may not provide the guarantee of safety that the community believes it does.
None the less, especially with our great influx of tourists, I believe that a visual watch is important. The 1,300 people who signed the petition that was brought to me at 8 am on Sunday morning certainly feel that most deeply. Can the Minister reassure me that he will guarantee to set a visual watch when it is genuinely needed?
I cannot accept the Secretary of State's decision with peace of mind for sailors without the Minister's guarantee of continuing safety through these and other measures.

Mr. Tony Speller: It is normally a great pleasure to ally myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), and I do so wholeheartedly, but not gladly. Now is not the time to reduce cover for the small boat brigade, let alone for the airbed brigade who bob gently out to sea on the tide, knowing nothing of the sea and its ways. My hon. Friend's constituents know about the sea, and have preserved the watch for a long time.
I understand entirely the reasons for the ministerial decision and I do not query it, but my constituents from the Ilfracombe and Croyde coastguard stations have come to me, not alarmed for jobs—as my hon. Friend said, the jobs are safe—but desperately alarmed for the safety of those who venture out in small boats without the knowledge that is desperately needed. For that reason, I am honoured, as always, to ally myself with my hon. Friend's views. I ask the Minister to keep a most careful eye on what happens. One child lost is too many, and if that loss can be blamed on the loss of the coastguard, neither he nor we will be easily forgiven.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for including the interests of north Cornwall, and the part of the coast that joins Hartland, in this Adjournment debate.
Let me reiterate two or three of my hon. Friend's points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify exactly what the future will be for the auxiliaries, because there is great concern among those who are involved in the tourist industry, and know that coast well, about the difficulties that visitors get into. They also know that many more people are indulging in adventurous sports and pastimes off the coast, which can cause considerable difficulties.
I also look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister says about Swansea and staffing there. Naturally, there is a lack of peace of mind as a result of the

announcement, which arises in no small way from the lack of confidence in Swansea's ability to deal with the problems—given that it is so far away.
My hon. Friend is quite right to have raised this issue and she is doing a great service to the people of Hartland, as well as to those who visit it while on holiday.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Good fortune has shone on my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and secured her the opportunity to raise both the proposed closure in March next year of Hartland Point maritime co-ordination sub-centre and the adequacy of coastguard services planned for the north and west Devon coast.
Understandably, my hon. Friend seeks reassurance about coastguard services, not only on behalf of residents in her constituency but with an eye to the welfare of the thousands of visitors who flock to the area that she represents and to its attractive coastline.
My hon. Friend raised a number of important points. She referred to the huge number of people who use the coastal sea, especially in the summer, to concerns about Trinity House and Royal National Lifeboat Institution changes in the area, to the possible redeployment of those no longer required in the Hartland Point centre, to the possibility of a second full-time officer, on changes to reduce the sector officer's work load, to the adequacy of manning at Swansea and to the monitoring of the speed and efficiency of rescue services. I shall endeavour to cover all those points in my reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) also raised the question of breeches buoys and rocket facilities, and I shall cover those points too.
For many people, including some hon. Members, the role and duties of Her Majesty's coastguard are something of a mystery. For that reason, it may be helpful if I start by explaining what the coastguards do and how they are organised to do it.
The United Kingdom coastline is divided into 110 sectors, each of which is manned by a group of part-time, but thoroughly trained, local auxiliary coastguards who perform varied duties from cliff rescue to visual watches at times of danger, under the command of a regular sector officer. The auxiliaries are recruited, trained and administered by the sector officer, a full-time professional coastguard.
Around our coast, there are 24 rescue co-ordination centres, whose job it is to receive information on incidents requiring search and rescue and to bring into operation the most suitable form of rescue service. The rescue co-ordination centres are manned 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they receive their information from satellite or radio distress signals, 999 calls and local coastguard sectors. The VHF radio is constantly monitored and, by means of 39 direction-finding VHF cross-reference systems, it is able to locate, or nearly locate, the source of the VHF distress signal.
Each co-ordination centre is responsible for a certain number of VHF aerials. It is a very effective system. By cross-linking one set of aerials with another, one can tell the precise direction from which a signal is coming. Where the direction lines from the two sets of aerials cross, one can identify the spot or be very near to the spot from which


the distress signal has come. The rescue co-ordination centre calls out the appropriate rescue service—the RNLI, a helicopter, or the auxiliary cliff rescue service.
I should add that even though it is not technically the responsibility of the coastguard, it also helps non-mariners who are in trouble on our coastline. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the constant work that is done in that way by the auxiliary and full-time coastguards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North raised the question of breeches buoys. At the time of its introduction well over a century ago, the breeches buoy was the only practical way of taking survivors off stranded vessels. Not only has stranding become much more rare, but most vessels that run ashore do not break up quickly. The possibility of rescue by boat or aircraft, or even by walking ashore when weather and tide permit, have led to the end in practical terms of the breeches buoy. On many parts of the coast it has not been used at all in living memory, and in other parts it has been employed very infrequently. Across the nation it has been used to bring people ashore only twice in five years, and even then it is doubtful whether it was the only or best method to use. Consequently, the efforts and money devoted to this complicated, limited and largely unused system are being diverted to other forms of assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North also asked about rocket-firing lines—I think that is what he had in mind—to people in trouble in the sea, including those on air beds. Such rockets are not very accurate and may even puncture or otherwise damage the air bed containing the unfortunate person that it is hoped to rescue. That is not a wholly desirable way to proceed.
An immense amount of technological advance lies behind the provision of rescue services. New methods and new equipment provide ways of achieving an improved service for mariners in distress, whether they are on large commercial vessels, fishing boats or on one of the huge fleet of pleasure craft that crowd our coastline, especially the attractive parts such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend.
I shall now turn from the general situation to the precise arrangements on the north and west Devon coasts, and shall deal first with visual watches. A visual watch from the Hartland coastguard look-out station is of limited value because one cannot see much of the near coast. However, there are very good long-distance sight lines. In practice, the visual watch is generally kept by Land Rover-equipped teams on appropriate vantage points and that has not been mounted continuously for five years. Visual casualty risk watches have instead been mounted and will continue to be mounted when the risks to mariners can be expected to rise.
That covers about 30 per cent. of the time and involves particular situations—either severe weather or a sudden deterioration in the weather or expected severe weather. The other characteristics which call for extra visual watches to be mounted are when there are many pleasure craft about. That means regattas, weekends in the summer, bank holidays and similar situations. In those situations when there are large numbers of craft about, especially when there are many amateurs on them, and in deteriorating weather conditions, extra visual watch is mounted and will continue to be mounted.
In the light of my hon. Friend's representations, I can say that it is intended to strengthen the auxiliary rescue

company at Hartland Point by deployment of additional auxiliaries—either some or all of those now tied up in the Hartland Point rescue centre and not on visual watch duties. I am sure that that announcement will reassure my hon. Friend and some of her constituents. I can promise that no compulsory redundancies will arise from the proposals for the Hartland Point rescue co-ordination centre.
My hon. Friend raised the question of the sector officer and asked me whether a second, back-up sector officer could be appointed or whether his work load could be eased so that he could give more time to that area. I can make a second announcement tonight, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome, that it is now proposed that the sector officer's length of coastline should be reduced by one third, and that the number of auxiliary companies for which he is responsible should be reduced from five to three. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to report that.
Another point raised by my hon. Friend, which slightly puzzles me, concerned the adequacy of the 999 system. The coastguard deserves considerable praise for its ingenuity over the matter of the 999 system. It has aligned the coastguard sectors with British Telecom's 999 call districts. As a result, if one makes a 999 call and asks for the coastguard, British Telecom automatically connects the call to the right coastguard rescue co-ordination centre. Of course, if someone from north Devon wants to get in touch with Swansea, he will not be successful because at the moment he will be put in touch with Hartland Point, as British Telecom is tied in with the coastguard. Once the change has taken place, he will automatically be put on to Swansea. My hon. Friend can be reassured on that point. I add that there is no question of her constituents worrying about long-distance calls, as such calls are automatically free.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the merging of districts. There is a technical benefit from merging two districts on opposite sides of the Bristol channel. In a variety of ways this will simplify radio surveillance. Because of the configuration of the coastline, the best location for some of the VHF aerials is on the opposite side of the Bristol channel. Thus, Hartland has control of an area of Cardiff and Swansea is connected to an aerial site at Combe Martin behind Ilfracombe. By opetating all the aerial sites from one operations room, mutual interference will be avoided and there will be an improvement in the technical operation of the radio side of the rescue operations services. Because all the aerials are expected to be retained, there will be no diminution in the cover. The changes in the routes of the control lines and the concentration of traffic in bigger, better-manned stations will help.
It has been asked why the merger is not the other way round, with Hartland being retained instead of Swansea. That is because substantially better facilities which are necessary to cope with major problems, particularly major disasters, are available at Swansea. Unlike Hartland, the building is permanent and has capacity for expansion.
The coastguard depends for its effectiveness on local knowledge and it takes considerable pains to enable watchkeepers to gain and acquire familiarity with the full extent of their guard, not only by visiting and exploring, but by developing an intricate network of contacts which can be used to obtain up-to-date information. Above all, the auxiliaries, under the regular sector officers, who live


all along the coast, provide invaluable sources of background, and immediate operational intelligence when required.
I can add to that that there are a number of other ways in which contact is made for example—with the harbour-master. It may help if I add that when the change to Swansea takes place, not only will the senior officer being added to the team at Swansea come from Hartland, and bring that knowledge, but it is anticipated that probably four others with some knowledge will go from Hartland. That will ensure not only that there is a pool of such knowledge but that those who are responsible at Swansea will be going across the Bristol channel meeting people along the coast, talking to the auxiliaries and the sector officers, getting to know their contacts so that they know to whom they are talking and the conditions that they are describing.
My hon. Friend expressed anxieties about the recent RNLI decision to replace the Lundy lifeboat with an improved craft at Appledore. That is entirely outwith my responsibilities. However, I have to say that the overall lifeboat coverage in the area has been substantially improved by the introduction of the Tyne class boats at Tenby, Padstow and the Mumbles as well as at Appledore. Furthermore, one of the new fast carriage boats is due to be stationed at Ilfracombe next year, and that RNLI capability is certainly much appreciated by the coastguards.
The House will be aware of the helicopter coverage of the area, with RAF search and rescue helicopters providing first-class cover in the Bristol channel by day as well as by night, and in thick weather.
My hon. Friend mentioned the important point of the staffing level of regular coastguard offices at Swansea. This will be augmented to take account of the increased responsibilities of the station. Four extra watchkeeping officers and an extra officer to reinforce the district management team will be provided, at least until such time

as the merger has settled down. Some of these, and at least the senior officer reinforcing Swansea, will come from the north Devon coast, bringing with them their intimate local knowledge. Moreover, the full-time senior watch officers at Swansea will be visiting north Devon to examine the coastline, and, as I described earlier, to meet the sector officers, auxiliary companies, harbour masters, RNLI, coxswains and so on.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of monitoring the response. We see no reason why response times should be changed, but we shall monitor them. On average, there are 230 marine incidents a year in the Hartland district. Each incident will continue to be investigated in the future to determine whether there have been any delays, and whether the response was correct.
We are approaching the summer season, when many more people take to their boats, some of them amateurs, and some of them very professional. It is time to remind them of the need to make sure that they have VHF radio with them, especially if they go out of sight of land. It would be extremely foolish to sail without VHF radio, which gives the means to summon assistance if need be. Those who are not familiar with the coast should ask the coastguard for advice before setting out, and at all times people should ensure that they have life-saving equipment on board.
My hon. Friend can take back to north and west Devon the knowledge that she has secured from me the announcements of increased staffing levels at Swansea, the reduction in the length of coastline covered by the full-time sector officer looking after the auxiliaries, the strengthening in the auxiliary forces at the Hartland area by redeployment of some of those now employed in the maritime rescue sub-centre, and the continual monitoring of the speed of response to any incidents that occur in this area. I hope that with those four announcements, my hon. Friend will feel that her time in this short Adjournment debate has been well spent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.